155
These definitions show that regionalism and integration are very close concepts. One of
the essential preconditions for integration is a basic will and disposition to cooperate
with other actors. This readiness and voluntariness of action also builds the ground for
regionalism. In most cases, entities brought together by way of integration are also
united by geographical vicinity. Integration processes often extend to the borders of a
certain regional entity, e.g. a continent or parts of it respectively. Thus, in a certain way,
European integration can be interpreted as a process of regional integration, a process
that strengthens the economic, political and ideological links between the European
states by way of cooperation. Baltic Sea Regionalism is based on similar grounds.
Processing cooperation and networking across the Baltic Sea rim is an instance of
integration, i.e. of the various actors conspiring for cooperation and togetherness. In line
with this argumentation, BSR-based regionalism can be defined as yet another case of
regional integration.
Wrapping up, European integration and Baltic Sea Regionalism can both be seen as
living examples of regional integration, with the geographical range building the main
qualitative disparity between the two.
Macro-level - European Integration
Meso-level - Baltic Sea Regionalism
Hence, besides the fact that the European project and the process of Baltic Sea
Regionalism are closely related to each other (in the sense of macro- and respective subregion), it can also be assumed that they follow a similar logic, the logic of progressive
integration. These considerations lead to the next step of argumentation. Given this
conceptual closeness between regionalism and integration, it appears legitimate and
viable to address the corpus of (European) Integration Theory (EIT) to try to explain the
inherent dynamics of Baltic Sea Regionalism and moreover, to trace the correlation
between the broader process of European integration and the specific regional
development in the BSR.
B. Theoretical Approaches to European Integration
I. European Integration Theory: Addressing regional integration?
Consulting the ‘oracle’ of EIT for the purpose of this study means, first and foremost, to
concentrate on the ‘regional’ or ‘regionalist’ focus of the different theoretical
approaches at hand. Many analysts equate the concept of ‘regional integration’ to that of
‘(general) integration’ by using the terms interchangeably.547 However, not all
approaches to European integration do explicitly emphasize the geographical or
regional aspect. According to Rosamond, viewing European integration as an instance
of regionalism, i.e. as “the tendency of groups of territorially-adjacent states to cluster
together into blocs”, is actually only one approach out of several. He claims that there
are at least four different “locations”, where one can seek to find an explanation for
European integration:548
547 See for example MATTLI Walter: The Logic of Regional Integration. Europe and Beyond.
Cambridge 1999.
548 See ROSAMOND Ben: Theories of European Integration. Basingstoke 2000, pp. 14-15.
156
– International Organisations;
– Regionalism;
– Complex Policy and Governance Systems;
– Subject sui generis.
The materialization of the so-called European project has been a major challenge for
International Relations (IR) Studies. The European integration process has been
accompanied by decades of academic thinking, and thus, it inspired the establishment of
what could be called an academic discipline of its own. European Integration Studies
have brought about a large stock of theoretical approaches; in various different ways,
analysts have tried to contribute to the global understanding of the political,
institutional, social and economic processes that came along with the development of
the European Community (EC), and later, the EU. Some approaches have managed to
clarify certain aspects of integration, while they certainly failed to explain other
particulars of the matter. However, it can generally be asserted that most traditional
theoretical models of European integration do not specify or focus on the aspect of
regionality or regionness. Indeed, most approaches take the fact of geographical
adjacency for granted. Christiansen points at the fact that the EU has started very late to
develop some sort of spatial approach towards certain policy issues.
The process of seeking to achieve territorial integration came relatively late to the European
project. For most of its life, the integration process had its emphasis on functional sectoral
integration, geared towards greater mobility of goods, people and services […].549
Also Niemann argues that aspects of spatiality for many years have been systematically
excluded from the European politics debate.550 This tendency in the European
integration process has been largely reflected in the models of explanation drawn by the
respective contemporary integration theorists. Generally, the influence of the EU’s
development on the course of theory production seems close to obvious. Indeed, there
are many examples that show how and to what extent EIT has followed the ups and
downs of its subject, one of the most prominent ones being the rise, fall, and comeback
of Neo-Functionalism in the wake of the Empty Chair crisis, and later, the SEA
respectively.551 Concerning a regional perspective on European integration, these
dynamics resulted in a deep-seated inability among the dominant theoretical paradigms
in integration studies to analyse spatiality or space. The question of what effects
physical vicinity can have on the course of the integrative development of a region
cannot be considered very current in traditional EIT. However, some theoretical models,
most importantly the ones that involve normative reasoning about identity-related
aspects of integration appear to be more dedicated to the effect of regional adjacency
with the most prominent example being social constructivist integration theory.552
549 CHRISTIANSEN Thomas: Towards Statehood? The EU’s move towards Constitutionalisation and
Territorialisation. In: Centre for European Studies. University of Oslo (ed.): ARENA Working
Paper, No. 21, August 2005, pp. 13-14.
550 See NIEMANN Michael: A Spatial Approach to Regionalisms in the Global Economy. Basingstoke
2000, pp. 4-5.
551 See DIEZ Thomas/WIENER Antje: Introducing the Mosaic of Integration Theory. In: Idd. (eds):
European Integration Theory. Oxford 2004, pp. 1-24, here p. 13.
552 See chapter “The Discursive Construction of Regions”, p. 170-, and chapter “Why the Explanatory
Power of Social Constructivism Remains Low”, p. 177-.
157
The following considerations aim at structuring the plethora of theories at hand
according to broad tendencies and developments in order to support and prepare the
then following discussion about applicability and interpretation of European Integration
Theories for the analytical purposes of this study.
II. Broad Tendencies and Competing Traditions in EIT
Given the confusingly large number of different approaches to (European) integration, it
appears appropriate to offer some kind of reference pattern or line for orientation that
helps to overview the bulk of European Integration Theories. It is not in the scope of
this chapter to provide an exhaustive picture of the history and the state-of-play in EIT.
The following discussion is rather meant to impose some sort of structure onto the large
sum of theoretical approaches that decades of research in the field of (European)
integration have brought about. There are different ways of how to structure EIT. Diez
and Wiener offer a chronological classification that helps to grasp the development of
EIT as a strain within the broader framework of IR Studies.553 Before outlining the three
main phases of EIT, they draw an overall picture of what they call the “proto-integration
theory period,” i.e. the scholar development that set the basis for what later became
known as “European Integration Theory”. According to this perspective, classic
Functionalism, with David Mitrany being its main representative, poses as some sort of
‘prototype’ for all the theoretical reflections on European integration that followed.554
Wiener and Diez offer an overview that suggests different phases of EIT, emphasising
the close relation between the socio-political context and the development of theory.
Phase Period of time Main issues in EIT
Explanatory after 1960 integration as a process
Analytical after 1980 the outcome of integration, EU governance and institutional features
Constructive after 1990 different forms and levels of governance
social and ideological construction of integration
Table 15: Phases in European Integration Theory555
553 See WIENER Antje: Finality vs. Enlargement. Opposing Rationales and Constitutive Practices
towards a new Transnational Order. In: Jean Monnet Working Paper, 8/02. New York 2002, p. 4.
554 ‘A Working Peace System’ (1943) was Mitrany’s core publication. Impressed by the war experience,
his contributions followed a very strong normative agenda. The main question addressed in his study
was how to constrain states and prevent future war through the establishment of a network of
transnational organizations on a functional basis. For him this question was more of a global concern
than a specific European issue. In fact, Mitrany even strongly opposed the idea of regional
integration since he perceived it to replicate rather than to transcend the state-centric design of
International Relations. See ROSAMOND Ben: Theories of European Integration. Basingstoke
2000, p. 36. Early Federalism can also be perceived as part of this formative proto-period of
European Integration Theory. In contrast to Functionalism, Federalism was more directly related to
the European case, claiming, for instance, for the establishment of a European Federation of States.
See DIEZ Thomas/WIENER Antje: Introducing the Mosaic of Integration Theory. In: Idd. (eds):
European Integration Theory. Oxford 2004, pp. 1-24, here p. 7.
555 Table generated on the basis of DIEZ Thomas/WIENER Antje: Introducing the Mosaic of
Integration Theory. In: Idd. (eds): European Integration Theory. Oxford 2004, pp. 1-24, here p. 7.
Chapter Preview
References
Zusammenfassung
Seit 1989 ist es im Ostseeraum zu einer explosionsartigen Entstehung einer Vielzahl von regionalen Initiativen und Zusammenschlüssen gekommen. Der Ostseeraum weist bis heute eine europaweit einzigartig hohe Konzentration an kooperativen regionalen Strukturen auf. Diese bilden gemeinsam ein enges Netzwerk von Vereinigungen, die unter dem Überbegriff der "Ostseezusammenarbeit’ interagieren.
Diese Studie analysiert die Hintergründe dieses regionalen Phänomens oder so genannten „Ostsee-Rätsels“ auf Basis eines Vergleichs zwischen den Regionalpolitiken zweier staatlicher Schlüsselakteure, Schweden und Finnland, wobei der europäische Integrationsprozess als übergeordneter Bezugsrahmen für die Untersuchung dient.