AVRUPA ENTEGRASYONU

Subdimensions of political integration are

• policy integration;
• institutional integration;
• civilizing/security dimension and

• attitudinal dimension.

Institutional integration refers to the growth of collective decision-making among a group of states. The extent to which common institutions are or should be supranational in character is a debated subject in the literature. Supranational institutions can engage the citizens of member states directly, and can take decisions independently of, and in some cases, against the wishes of the member states. Intergovernmental institutions, by contrast, are those that result from the cooperation of national governments, and have no power beyond that permitted to them by those governments.

Permissive consensus:

The pre-Maastricht political context that allowed further integration led by elites with tacit support or indifference of citizens.

Institutional balance:

The principle of institutional balance in the EU implies that each of its institutions has to act in accordance with the powers conferred on it by the Treaties, in accordance with the division of powers

Democratic deficit:

It is a term used by people who argue that the EU institutions and their decision-making procedures suffer from a lack of democracy and seem inaccessible to the ordinary citizen due to their complexity. The real EU democratic deficit seems to be absence of European politics

Apart from option A, other options are about Pragmatist Politics of the Mid-1970s and Beyond.

The transformative yet uncertain context of the 1990s necessitated a qualitative leap forward from the EC side in order to adapt to the new European order by pushing both monetary union and political union. The outcome was the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 which was shaped by a combination of internal debates and positions, as well as attempts to react to a number of external shocks. 

The dominant role of the European Council in the development of the EU has some significant implications for the institutional balance. Its expanded roles have brought about a transition from the original bi-polar institutional system into a tri-polar balance and subsequently, a four polar balance with the Lisbon reforms (Monar, 2011). The institutional balance of power has shifted in favour of the European Council and the European Parliament (EP) vis-a-vis relative decline in the powers of the Commission and of the Council. In so doing, Lisbon strengthened both citizens and Member States as key sources of legitimacy in the EU.

Uwe Puetter (2016, 57) associates the new intergovernmentalism with three arguments: the integration paradox; deliberative intergovernmentalism as a new form of EU governance in highly prominent areas of EU activity such as economic governance and foreign and security policy and that prevails over the classic Community method, and a new phase in the European integration.

Communitarization

The shift of policy activity from the intergovernmental pillars to the Community pillar.

Regulatory state:

It is the expansion in the use of rule-making, monitoring, and enforcement techniques and institutions by the state, and a parallel change in the way in which its positive functions in society are being carried out.

it is both useful and necessary to differentiate between the sub-dimensions of
political integration below:

Sectoral Integration is a conception or strategy for regional integration that follows sector-by-sector logic.

The principle of institutional balance in the EU implies that each of its institutions has to act in accordance with the powers conferred on it by the Treaties, in accordance with the division of powers.

The EU is neither a state nor a traditional international organization, but rather a unique experiment embedding the national in the European and the European in the national. The EU is a nonstate actor but it performs a wide variety of state functions, both internally and externally. What distinguishes the EU above all is its institutions: they deserve particular attention not only because they are unique and/or hybrid in character, but also because institutions are the locus of power politics for several players. Institutions are arenas where power and influence are exercised and bargains take place within a framework of norms, rules, ideas, and practices, formal and informal. Policy debates are mostly debates between national actors pursuing national interests. Yet, EU politics have to be understood in terms of institutional competition (and cooperation) among its principal institutions and not just in terms of intergovernmental competition (and cooperation) between the member states. EU institutions do not always act as agents of member governments they also enjoy substantial autonomy against them.

The democratic deficit is a term used by people who argue that the EU institutions and their decision-making procedures suffer from a lack of democracy and seem inaccessible to an ordinary citizen due to their complexity. The real EU democratic deficit seems to be the absence of European politics

Communitarization is the shift of policy activity from the intergovernmental pillars to the Community pillar.

The regulatory state is the expansion in the use of rule-making, monitoring, and enforcement techniques and institutions by the state, and a parallel change in
the way in which its positive functions in society are being carried out.

Underlying the European integration is the task of managing high levels of interdependence and the provision of collective goods and the attainment of the common good for European states and societies all. This gives rise to the need for institutionalizing collective governance with institutions that work collectively to offer leadership, to manage diverse tasks and to integrate diverse interests.

Institutional integration refers to the growth of collective decision-making among a group of states. The extent to which common institutions are or should be supranational in character is a debated subject in the literature. Supranational institutions can engage the citizens of member states directly and can take decisions independently of, and in some cases, against the wishes of the member states. Intergovernmental institutions, by contrast, are those that result from the cooperation of national governments and have no power beyond
that permitted to them by those governments.

Attitudinal integration is concerned with the sources of support or opposition to regional integration among the public at large and among the political and economic elites. Attitudes affect the development of policy and institutional integration. For instance, European public support for a more effective, credible and coherent EU foreign policy as well as external demands and expectations are one of the key factors shaping the actorness of the Union. It is also important to recognize the transformative nature of European integration: the transformation of the nation-state by the EU and the transformation of the EU by the member states and the contradictory and differential impact of globalization on the EU.