Neofunctionalism

From functionalism to neofunctionalism

David Mitrany's (1943) functionalism held that building international cooperation in technical, nonpolitical areas such as postal services, transport and health would naturally spread peace among states. In The Uniting of Europe (1958), Ernst Haas developed the idea by analyzing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). He argued that integration does not happen automatically through technical cooperation but is a political process in which interest groups that gain from integration, such as firms, unions and parties, shift their expectations and loyalties from the nation-state to a new supranational center. He defined political integration as the process whereby political actors in several national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new center. Lindberg (1963) applied the approach to early policymaking in the European Economic Community (EEC).

The mechanism of spillover

The core of neofunctionalism is spillover. Functional spillover occurs when integration in one sector cannot work well without integration in linked sectors, creating demand for more: a customs union calls for competition policy and regulatory harmonization, and a single market for a single currency. Political spillover occurs when interest groups and elites pursue their interests at the supranational level and press for wider integration, and cultivated spillover occurs when supranational bodies such as the European Commission drive the integration agenda themselves. Philippe Schmitter (1969) also identified the possibility of spillback, in which integration stalls or reverses. The theory has been used to explain the path from the ECSC to the EEC, the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty and the euro.

Critiques and revival

When de Gaulle's 1965 empty chair crisis halted integration, Stanley Hoffmann (1966) argued that states would not readily surrender sovereignty in "high politics" such as foreign policy and security. Haas himself declared regional integration theory "obsolescent" in 1975. Andrew Moravcsik's (1998) liberal intergovernmentalism portrayed integration as the product of member governments' domestic preferences and interstate bargaining. After the single-market program of the mid-1980s, however, Sandholtz and Stone Sweet (1998) and others revived neofunctionalism as supranational governance theory, and responses to the eurozone crisis such as banking union were read as spillover through crisis. Hooghe and Marks (2009) proposed postfunctionalism, in which mass identity politics constrains integration, with Brexit often cited as a prime example.

FAQ

What is neofunctionalism in simple terms?

When countries integrate economically in one area, related areas also need integrating, and this chain reaction gradually builds toward political integration.

What is spillover?

It is when integration in one area requires integration in another to work properly, for example the single market creating pressure for a single currency.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Haas, E. B. (1958). The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950–1957. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
2. Haas, E. B. (1964). Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
3. Mitrany, D. (1943). A Working Peace System. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
4. Lindberg, L. N. (1963). The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
5. Lindberg, L. N., & Scheingold, S. A. (1970). Europe's Would-Be Polity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6. Schmitter, P. C. (1969). Three neo-functional hypotheses about international integration. International Organization, 23(1), 161–166.
7. Haas, E. B. (1975). The Obsolescence of Regional Integration Theory. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies.
8. Hoffmann, S. (1966). Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state and the case of Western Europe. Daedalus, 95(3), 862–915.
9. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The Choice for Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
10. Sandholtz, W., & Stone Sweet, A. (Eds.). (1998). European Integration and Supranational Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Niemann, A., & Schmitter, P. C. (2009). Neofunctionalism. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European Integration Theory (2nd ed., pp. 45–66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2009). A postfunctionalist theory of European integration. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 1–23.
13. Schimmelfennig, F. (2018). Liberal intergovernmentalism and the crises of the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(7), 1578–1594.