AbstractsPolitical Science

Political scientists have been searching for a comprehensive theoretical framework to explain the dynamics of European integration since the European Communities came into being in the early 1950s. European integration theory was dominated by neo-functionalism in the 1960s and by realism in the 1970s and early 1980s. In the late 1980s these two paradigms were finally confronted. As a result of this confrontation, there seems to be an emergence of a new approach based on the idea that neither neo-functionalism nor realism alone can explain European integration but that each perspective provides fundamental insights. Multi-level governance models and even state-centred models tend to recognise that both theoretical frameworks have something to offer. Is it possible to view neo-functionalism and realism as complementary instead of competing theories of European integration. If both approaches contain some elements of truth but neither taken on its own is sufficient, insights from each may be needed to really understand the dynamics of integration. This piece of work tries to establish whether the idea that these two explanations need to be combined is worth considering at all. This hypothesis is tested in relation to European merger policy. The European Economic Community's (EEC) Merger Regulation represents the single most important extension of Community competition law since its inception. Merger control was explicitly contemplated in the 1951 Treaty of Paris but the EEC was created in 1957 without any reference to these policy arrangements. For the first time in 1973, the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for an EEC merger regulation. Yet it was only after five amendments and sixteen years that, in 1989, a merger control regulation was agreed upon. Why was an agreement on European merger regulation possible in 1989 rather than before. This research addresses this question using both neo-functionalism and realism as explanatory theories.