190
III. Application Pattern II: The Correlation Between Meso and Macro-Level
The question of applicability of EIT can also be posed in another context. Are the
European Integration Theories at hand suitable to explain the correlation between
macro-level integration and the integrative dynamics at the meso-level (i.e. in the BSR)?
It appears obvious that the analysis aiming to answer this question has to focus on the
potential “regional dimension” featured by various theoretical models. Hence, virtually
“applicable” approaches should (at least) provide an understanding of
– how the EU relates to its own (territorial) parts,
– and vice versa, how these “parts” relate to the overall EU framework.
Trying to remain within the practical scope of this study, I am neither willing nor able to
detect these aspects in every single approach to integration that the last decades of
European studies have put forth. Hence, I would like to approach this analytical
complex by applying a (negative) logic of exclusion, by asking: What limits are set to
the applicability of European Integration Theory when it comes to the explanation of
complex political processes between the EU and a European regional entity such as the
BSR? The search for the answer to this question should first lead us to the consideration
of the following tendencies in (European) Integration Theory:
– Given the fact that most European Integration Theories are designed to explain EU
internal processes, there is a clear lack in emphasis on the specific circumstances of
foreign policy.673 Since the complex interrelation between the EU and the BSR as a
European meso-region can be regarded as part of a “grey zone” between the EU’s
internal and external policy dimension, it is likely to constitute a marginal or
borderline case for most theoretical models available in the field.
– The traditional (and many of the current) approaches to European integration have
been (explicitly or inexplicitly) designed for the European macro-level, i.e. the
European integration process. These models largely tend to be either state-oriented
or empirically focussed on the structural process of institutionalisation and the
build-up of a (potentially) supranational polity sui generis.
– The major strands in EIT seem to base on a “unitarist thesis”, following a certain
“drive for centrality” which implies that their analytical sharpness is low by nature
when it comes to the explanation of “peripheral” or decentralising phenomena.674
– Most theoretical approaches to European integration draw a sharp line between
macro-level and sub-level action. Instead of identifying and analysing the linkages
between the two (or more) levels, the respective political processes are largely
treated as two different and distinct political phenomena.
When it comes to the discussion of approaches that consider the complex correlation
between different levels of political action, one specific connotation may certainly crop
up: the one of multi-level governance models in EIT. In fact, as laid out in the context
of the first application pattern, governance models do not only describe the dispersion of
competence across territorial levels but they also focus on the interconnection of
673 See CHRISTIANSEN Thomas/TONRA Ben: The Study of EU Foreign Policy. Between international relations and European studies. In: Idd. (eds): Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy.
Manchester/New York 2004, pp. 1-9, here p. 4.
674 See PARKER Noel: Integrated Europe and its ‘Margins’. Action and Reaction. In: Id./
ARMSTRONG Bill (eds): Margins in European Integration. Houndmills 2000, pp. 3-27, here p. 18.
191
multilevel political arenas in the process of governing. In contrast to state centric
approaches, multi-level governance does not contend that state sovereignty is preserved
or even strengthened trough further integration; nor do multi-level governance
approaches suggest that nation state influence absolutely controls institutional
development beyond the state level. Decision-making between various levels of action
is seen as loosely interconnected instead of assuming the persistence of tightly nested
and hierarchical chains of bilateral links. Institutions are perceived to have an
independent influence in policy making that cannot be derived from their role as agents
of national executives.675
By emphasising the poly-centricity of complex systems of integration, governance
approaches certainly cover many important aspects that are significant in the context of
the second application pattern. The correlation between the regional arena (the BSR)
and the wider EU framework appears to comply with the notion of loose multilateral
links as suggested by multi-level governance approaches. However, besides the fact that
these approaches are not equipped to analyse the motivation behind such cross-level
interactions, meaning interests and obviously existing efficiency calculations, they do
not provide sufficient analytical potential to grasp the politico-strategic dynamics
underlying this multi-layered system. As noted by Marsh and Furlong, “in practice,
multilevel governance can also mean obscure elite-led agreements and public
incomprehension.”676 Multi-level governance approaches are not perfectly precise in
this respect.
Another point of reference for the analysis of the macro-meso relationship, meaning
macro-level processes and the respective bottom-up and top-down effects, results from
the consideration, that from a nation state perspective (Sub)regionalism and European
integration can be seen as two substantially different or even diametrically opposed
processes of structural change virtually moving a political system ‘beyond the nation
state’.677 Power and governance is dislocated “upwards” to the supranational level, and
“downwards” to regional and local entities. The latter movement could also be said to
head “outwards” since non-state bodies gain centre stage.678
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, twin forces continue to stretch the nation-state in
opposite directions. States as they enter the new millennium are transformed not only by the
centripetal pull of supranational integration, but also by the centrifugal forces of resurgent
Regionalism. [...] Uncertainty generated by these countervailing forces prompts powerful
and contentious arguments about the normative and empirical roles of subnational actors in
increasingly complex webs of multi-level governance.679
675 See HOOGHE Liesbet/MARKS Gary: Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Lanham
2001, p. 3.
676 MARSH David/FURLONG Paul: A Skin not a Sweater. Ontology and Epistemology in Political
Science. In: MARSH David/STOKER Gerry (eds): Theory and Methods in Political Science.
London 2001, pp. 17-41, here p. 38.
677 ‘Beyond the nation state’ as a phrase dates back to Ernst B. Haas, one of the main exponents of Neo-
Functionalism. HAAS Ernst B.: Beyond the Nation-State. Functionalism and International
Organization. Stanford 1964.
678 See AMIN Ash: Spatialities of Globalisation. In: Environment and Planning, No. 34/2002, pp. 385-
399, here p. 386.
679 DOWNS William M.: Regionalism in the European Union. Key Concepts and Project Overview. In:
Journal of European Integration, No. 3/2002, pp. 171-177, here p. 171.
192
Even though depending on the perspective these two dynamics do not always occur in
terms of “countervailing forces” it should be taken into account that the alleged
permanent cleavage between supranational “integratedness” and regionalist affixedness
is likely to affect a nation state’s foreign policy orientation.680 (Sub-) Regionalism may
also influence a state’s membership conduct and thereby have a positive or negative
effect on the process of macro-level integration. These potentially conflicting dynamics
between a macro-level entity and meso-level formations that intersect with the
catchment area of the former are widely neglected in most theoretical models on
regional (and European) integration. Together with the four counter-factors mentioned
above, this consideration should make us reconsider the analytical self-limitation to the
field of EIT. One of the strongest arguments in this regard is what Rumford called the
EIT’s inherent “European solipsism”, meaning the tendency in European integration
studies of viewing the EU as “the sole author of European developments.”
In order to understand the dynamics of contemporary European transformation, EU studies
must encourage a greater diversity of (theoretical) perspectives. [...] Developments in
Europe are best studied within a global framework.681
Decades of academic thinking about European integration have taught us to restrict our
perspective onto the European case and to reject any sort of external analysis that tries
to generalise the specific European case or abstract it on a more global basis. IR Theory
has been blamed for its tendency to “normalise” the EU by applying a certain (statecentric) logic to a system that is allegedly sui generis. 682
The dominant paradigm in IR scholarship regards European integration as the practice of
ordinary diplomacy under conditions creating unusual opportunities for providing collective
goods through highly institutionalised exchange. From this ‘intergovernmentalist’
perspective, the EC is essentially a forum for interstate bargaining. Member-states remain
the only important actors at the European level.683
In fact, most traditional IR approaches concentrate on constellations of power and
interest among states and neglect other significant factors such as the formative impact
of institutions on state level political conduct or the importance of values and norms for
the formation of interests and strategic objectives; most scholars in the field probably
680 Another very different perspective on the parallel process of Supranationalisation and Regionalism
builds the basis of notions like the ‘Europe of the Regions’. According to the regional federalist
perspective, the two dynamics do not appear as countervailing forces. They both contribute to the
aim of compensating “what the modern nation state cannot do in a world of complex
interdependence.” The vision behind this concept is a decentralised European federation in which the
role and power of nation states is progressively reduced to a scale where state centrality is irrelevant
to political reality. See GÄRTNER Heinz: Modelle Europäischer Sicherheit. Wie entscheidet
Österreich? Vienna 1997, p. 56. See also chapter “What kind of ‘Europe of the Regions’?”, p. 206-.
681 RUMFORD Chris: Rethinking European Spaces. Territory, Borders, Governance. In: Comparative
European Politics, Issue 2/3 (July/September 2006), pp. 127–140, here p. 129.
682 This criticism has been fairly present in the general dispute between neo-realists/
intergovernementalists and constructivists. For more details on this dispute, see CHRISTIANSEN
Thomas/JØRGENSEN Knud Erik/WIENER Antje: The Social Construction of Europe. In: Journal
of European Public Policy 6:4, Special Issue 1999, pp. 528-544, here p. 533. And MORAVCSIK
Andrew: ‘Is Something Rotten in the State of Denmark?’ Constructivism and European Integration.
In: Journal of European Public Policy 6:4, Special Issue 1999, pp. 669-681.
683 PIERSON Paul: The Path to European Integration. A Historical Institutionalist Approach. In:
Comparative Political Studies, No. 2/1996, pp. 123-163, here p. 124.
193
also feel themselves merely focussing on the interaction of states through diplomacy or
violence within an overall context of structural anarchy.684 However, EIT could equally
be blamed for trying to develop a “general theory of regional integration from very
particular European experiences.”685
Hurrel probably has a point claiming that some political or social phenomena might
appear to be politically complex but theoretically, turn out to be “rather easily
explicable” by applying a “traditional toolkit.”686 He also goes on with a rather
provocative but probably useful recommendation.
Rather than try and understand other regions through the distorting mirror of Europe, it is
better to think in general theoretical terms and in ways that draw both on traditional
International Relations and on other areas of social thought. Hence we should consider
foundational sets of ideas before they have become encrusted by their application to a
particular region or case.687
While in this context, Hurrell is referring to the applicability of EIT to other regions,
meaning regions outside Europe, these considerations appear to be also highly relevant
for the theoretical complex addressed in this study. These considerations build the point
of departure for the following trial application of IRT to the Baltic Sea case. They have
also led to the consideration of yet another theoretical camp in political science for the
purpose of this study. By way of concluding this theoretical section, an “outsider”
approach taken from the field of traditional comparative analysis, the system theoretical
model developed by Talcott Parsons will be dealt with, intending to point out the added
value alternative theoretical choices can bring when trying to analyse an issue as
complex as the “Baltic Sea Conundrum.”
D. Inputs from International Relations Theory
Most approaches in IRT developed before or during the Cold War have mainly focussed
on large-scale and global developments and processes. Only after the superpower
overlay had been lifted, also IRT slowly started to open itself towards political
phenomena at a “lower” level of action. However, since state-centric perspectives still
dominate scholarship in this field, a theoretical IR model explicitly treating the subject
of meso-regional cooperation or regionalism is difficult to come by.
However, selected traditional IR approaches do address the aspect of cooperation
occurring within a certain geopolitical unit, and therefore, appear to be arguably
applicable for the purposes of this study. The arrangement of this chapter takes over the
structure suggested for the discussion of various different approaches in EIT.688 The
aforementioned “application pattern I” refers to the BSR in terms of a macro-cosmic
entity, treating it as a phenomenon of its own with less attention to the ways it relates to
the ‘outside world’, mainly meaning the broader context of European integration. The
684 See ROSAMOND Ben: Theories of European Integration. Basingstoke 2000, p. 164.
685 See ibd., p. 159.
686 HURRELL Andrew: The Regional Dimension in International Relations Theory. In: FARRELL
Mary/HETTNE Björn/VAN LANGENHOVE Luk (eds): Global Politics and Regionalism. London
2005, pp. 38-53, here p. 39.
687 Ibd., here p. 39.
688 See also table 19 presented in chapter “Applying Integration Theory to the Baltic Sea Case:
Application Patterns”, p. 162-.
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.