b. Application of Theory
This thesis has a strong focus on theory because the drawing on theory allows to not only see why a policy was created, but also policy-making: the conflicts, the actors, their interests, the veto players, the negotiations. It puts a stronger emphasis on institutions than an analysis that focusses less on theory and more on the problem-solving, practical aspect of a field.
This focus of course stems from the question guiding this thesis: what integration theory can contribute to understanding the integration of asylum in the EU, its causes, contents and output.
To answer it, I looked at the field in question through the lens of European Integration theory and tried to find out how different theoretical concepts would portray the development of the CEAS, which pieces of the acquis and which circumstances they would highlight as the driving force.
In short, the empirical work of this thesis drew onto the theory by finding evidence that supports the importance of one theory or another. This concept is taken from Schäfer (2002) who did something very similar in employment policy.171 Like him, I also focused on four integration theories: institutionalism, neofunctionalism, intergovernmentalism and governance.
This selection was done because of three main reasons:
• These four models are the main theories of European Integration, with the largest body of literature and discourse.
• These are also the theories that have been used in the field of migration.
• Finally, they do represent four substantially different ways of policy-making, which is best for comparison.
These different understandings of policy-making vary in terms of who each theory underlines as the driving force behind the integration of any given policy field of the EU. They focus on different actors, content and dynamics, and they all have their flaws: aspects they leave out or are not able to explain convincingly. Schäfer’s model puts the four theories in question into a matrix that reflects these different understandings of policy-making. It asks two basic questions: who is the focus of the theory (is it formal institutions, such as the regulatory mode of governance, or is it the actors) and what is the motivation of policy making (the actor’s own interests, or the active solving of problems).172 The theories fit into the matrix as following:
171 Schäfer 2002, 6f.
172 Schäfer 2002, 6
Motivation of Actors
Own interests Problem-solving
Subject of Analysis
Institutions Institutionalism Neofunctionalism Actors Intergovernmentalism Governance
Table 2: Matrix of Integration Theories
Institutionalism therefore understands institutions and their inner workings as the main driving force behind EU-integration. This includes institutional constraints by unanimous voting or the regulatory mode, court rulings and path-dependency of policy. Neofunctionalism also focusses on institutions, but it is more concerned with problem-solving and unintended further integration that for example Schengen brought (the spill-over effects). Governance is equally concerned with problem-solving, but it shifts the attention to a variety of actors, also outside of the formal actors in the EU, like how the OMC includes the member states strongly or how the Turkey statement is an example of cooperation with non-EU countries. Finally, intergovernmentalism highlights the importance of actors as well, but how their own interests influence policy-making. The classic venue-shopping argument is an example of this.
c. Characteristics of the Field
The field is a very interesting one within the arguably unique setting of the EU. Asylum began to europeanize in the Eurosklerosis-phase of European Integration, when the overall process had slowed down considerably. That might be why the cooperation moved from relatively soft cooperation to harder methods over time. Furthermore, asylum as a matter of national sovereignty is of particular interest if on a supranational level. This is why one always encounters the member states’ stances on the matter when studying the CEAS, whether it is their ideas of what cooperation should look like, or resistance to further integration. Finally, the field is also of particular interest because it is not an economic topic, like the classic fields of EU integration. Rather, it has to do with human rights, security and social policy.
d. Challenges of the Analysis
The four theories in question are not equally well-developed or have equally strongly the goal to explain integration. Institutionalism for example is a fully-developed model to explain European integration, whereas Governance is merely a cluster of theories.173 They are not fully comparable, but as it was not the goal of Schäfer’s analysis, it is not the goal of this thesis either.
Furthermore, by only focusing on four integration theories and the method described above, a
173 Schäfer 2002, 8
certain selectivity in what is presented cannot be avoided. Also, one has to keep in mind that the integration of asylum in the EU has been and is a complex process with the final outcome more dependent on trial and error as well as necessity instead of the one goal that the EU works towards. With the added reality that competences and policy-making, interests and circumstances changed, all theories hold merit in some situations. It would be unrealistic to expect to find the one explanation for the integration of the CEAS. Also, all of the theories have been applied in the field in one way or another, so part of the analysis is to test the arguments through the method applied by Schäfer and with a sharper focus on the CEAS, yet with a more detailed collection of the acquis. Furthermore, as the member states still decide considerably in the field, their vastly different interests and influence is never far in such an analysis. One has to be careful to keep them out of it unless their role was incremental for the causes, direction and form of the integration. Finally, as the CEAS is not completed, the final outcome has not yet been defined, and can therefore not be used to judge the success or failure of what has happened. It can also not be used as a reference of which steps of the process were most important for the CEAS, because we do not yet know where it will end up.
e. Layout of the next chapter
On a more technical level, the results of the analysis will be presented as follows: the three plus one phases (the one being the so-called pre-phase of how asylum made the agenda) constitute the sections so that it follows a chronological structure. Within these sections, the four integration theories are the subsections. In each of these subsections, I consider what each phase would look like according to the theory in question, and then what reality is like: which parts of the acquis each theory can explain well, and with which part it struggles. The matters of interests are:
• Causes of Europeanization: Why was it even up for discussion? Was it external events, previous integration, the interests of actors, etc.?
• Policy-making: who set the agenda and how was the discussion framed? Who were the veto players and actors, what were their powers and interests? Whose interests prevailed eventually?
• Output: is the focus on security or human rights, on deeper and wider integration or on the member states’ national interests? What type of legislation developed?