The document summarizes several theories for why European countries initially integrated: to boost security by countering German power, facilitate economic growth through open markets, and strengthen democracy. It analyzes key papers arguing integration created institutions to prevent war, enabled private sector agenda-setting, and was championed by Konrad Adenauer to curb extremism. While integration achieved stability and growth, questions remain over its ability to address new security threats or redundancy in trade given new agreements.

1. The History of EU
integration
Why integrate in the first place?
Daniel Martinez, Gretchen Cloutier and Owen Bell

2. Overview of Presentation
● Theories of Integration
● Summary of the key readings’ main argument
○ Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M. and Verdier, D. (2005), European Integration
as a Solution to War, European Journal of International Relations,
11(1), pp. 99-135.
○ Green Cowles, M. (1995) Setting the Agenda for a New Europe: The
ERT and EC 1992, Journal of Common Market Studies, 33(4), pp. 501-
26.
○ The Founding Fathers of the EU: The European Union Explained,
European Union 2013, pp. 5-6
● Critiques and reflections of key readings
● Conclusion and Questions

3. Theories of Integration
● Liberal Theory
○ Commercial incentives
○ As a result of the new economical and technological trends in
the world
● Social Constructivist Theory
○ Common identity
○ “Process of social learning and ideational assimilation that lead
actors to reorient their loyalties towards a new supranational
community” (p.103)

4. Theories of Integration
● Realist Theories
○ Need to ensure security for all members
1. Integration to boost their strength against external threats
2. American participation
3. Compete in the political and economical sphere against
Japan and US
4. Contain German power in order to prevent future
aggression

5. European Integration as a Solution to War
● Main argument: EU integration creates binding
international institutions that are a solution to preventive
war and establishes credible commitment amongst
member states
● Case of post-war Europe and need to balance against
German power
○ “Post-war European officials conceived the problem of German power
in terms of a preventive war dilemma, which they hoped to solve by
means of integration” (p. 104).
○ “Integration has rendered the German commitment to peace credible
by decisively limiting German power potential” (p.127).

6. European Integration as a Solution to War (cont’d)
● Theoretical basis: Game Theory
○ What conditions are necessary to create binding international
institutions with credible commitment?
○ 3 mechanisms: Contingent efficiency gains, exit penalty,
redistribution in real power
● A high exit cost dissuades members from abandoning the
institution, thus rendering it binding
● Critique: In light of Brexit, are exit costs enough to solve the
credible commitment problem?

7. Setting the Agenda for a New Europe: The ERT and EC 1992
● Main argument: Non-state actors in the private sector were
instrumental in setting the agenda for creating a single
European market and launching the reindustrialisation of
Europe in the 1980s.
● European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT)
○ “The European Market must serve as the unified ‘home’ base
necessary to allow European firms to develop as powerful
competitors in world markets” (ERT, 1983, p. 2) in (Cowels, 1995, p.
507).
● Europe 1990 Plan / Dekker Paper / White Paper

8. Setting the Agenda for a New Europe: The ERT and EC 1992 (cont’d)
● Theoretical basis
○ Neofunctionalism: Business elites promote integration
due to expected gains
○ Intergovernmentalism: Heads of government advance
integration because they are informed by domestic
policy actors, including business groups
● According to the author, both theories have shortcomings...

9. Setting the Agenda for a New Europe: The ERT and EC 1992 (cont’d)
● “It is clear that intergovernmentalist theory cannot explain the
activities of the key non-state actors in the 1992 process. The
single market programme was not merely the result of
conventional statecraft” (p. 521).
● “The ERT assumed many of the roles that have previously been
reserved for Member States. The ERT became a political actor in
its own right” (p. 522).
● Critique: ERT involvement in EU policy does not render
intergovernmentalism theory invalid. Heads of state are still
undertaking the process the integration; it is not only the work of
the ERT. Calling them a “political actor” does not give them voting
rights, etc.

10. Konrad Adenauer: The Solution to Political Extremism
● Main argument: The EU facilitates economic growth and
protection of democracy across Europe, while economic
interdependence contributes to a lasting peace.
● Adenauer:
○ Lifelong opponent of political extremism- persecuted by the
Imperial German government for his Catholicism, and later by the
Nazis for being a member of the Catholic Centre Party. (p. 5)
○ Belief that pan-European cooperation and unity was essential to
restore Germany’s reputation in the post-Nazi era.
○ Key proponent of European Coal and Steel Community, and
European Economic Community

11. Konrad Adenauer: The Solution to Political Extremism
(cont’d)
● Critique: Adenauer failed to create safeguards against non-
EU extremism.
● The institutions he helped create have been powerless
against Islamist terrorism and Russian aggression.
● Very recently, the rise of the far-right AfD have tarnished the
reputation of the Bundesrepublik as a tolerant nation,
though Adenauer can hardly be blamed for this, and
Germany is not the only country seeing a rise of
authoritarianism.

12. Konrad Adenauer: The Solution to Political Extremism
(cont’d)
● Overall, Adenauer’s legacy has been viewed positively; in
2003, a poll of Germans chose him as ‘the greatest German
of all time.’ (p. 6)
● Even when he was still alive, his reputation for wisdom and
effectiveness earnt him the nickname Die Alte, or The Elder.
(p. 6)

13. Conclusion
So, Why integrate in the first place?
○ Political stability: Need to counterbalance a hegemonic
Germany and ensure regional security
○ Economic growth: Need to create stronger industries
and facilitate economic openness.
○ Democratic wellbeing: Need to facilitate the growth of
democracy and protection of human rights in member
states.

14. Questions
● Are these needs (regional security and economic openness)
still relevant?
○ Other hegemons or security threats? Is the EU effective
in counterbalancing this? (ie Russia)
○ Is the EU redundant in international trade policy? How
do other trade and industry agreements (ie, TTIP) fit in
with EU regulations?