Regional integration theories gain clearer meaning when applied to real regional organizations. The European Union (EU), ASEAN, and SAARC represent different levels and patterns of integration, making them useful cases for comparing theoretical explanations.
In the European Union, neo-functionalism offers the most persuasive explanation. European integration began with limited economic cooperation in coal and steel but gradually expanded into broader areas such as trade, monetary policy, and political coordination. The concept of spillover is clearly visible, as integration in one sector created pressures for further integration in related fields. Supranational institutions such as the European Commission, European Court of Justice, and European Parliament have played an autonomous role in driving integration beyond the preferences of individual states. Interest groups and political elites also increasingly shifted their loyalties toward EU institutions. However, intergovernmentalism remains relevant in explaining major treaty reforms such as Maastricht and Lisbon, where national governments retained decisive control. Thus, EU integration is best understood through a combination of neo-functionalism for day-to-day deepening and intergovernmentalism for high-level political bargaining.
In contrast, ASEAN is better explained by intergovernmentalism and neo-regionalism rather than neo-functionalism. ASEAN emphasizes state sovereignty, non-interference, and consensus decision-making, often referred to as the “ASEAN Way.” Integration has remained limited and flexible, focusing on economic cooperation and regional stability rather than supranational authority. There is little evidence of spillover or strong regional institutions acting independently of member states. Neo-regionalism, however, helps explain ASEAN’s evolution in the post–Cold War era, where economic globalization, regional identity, and engagement with external powers shaped cooperation. ASEAN’s integration reflects pragmatic cooperation rather than deep political integration, highlighting the dominance of state interests.
SAARC presents the weakest case for classical integration theories. Intergovernmentalism best explains SAARC’s limited progress, as member states—particularly India and Pakistan—prioritize national security and sovereignty over regional goals. Political disputes and lack of trust have prevented meaningful spillover or institutional strengthening. Neo-functionalism fails to explain SAARC due to the absence of supranational institutions and elite-driven integration. However, neo-regionalism provides partial insight by emphasizing informal cooperation, people-to-people contact, and economic potential, though these remain underdeveloped. SAARC illustrates how political conflict and asymmetrical power relations can obstruct integration regardless of economic incentives.
Comparatively, the EU represents deep integration, where neo-functionalism and supranationalism are most applicable. ASEAN reflects shallow but stable integration, dominated by intergovernmental bargaining and regional norms. SAARC exemplifies stalled integration, where intergovernmentalism explains persistent obstacles and neo-regionalism highlights unrealized potential. These cases demonstrate that no single theory universally explains regional integration; instead, theoretical relevance varies according to historical context, political will, and institutional design.
Информация по комментариям в разработке