Theories of Integration It has seen a theoretical and methodological dichotomy in recent regionalism studies, namely rationalist and social

constructivist in the mainstream theories, such as international cooperation theories (neo-realism and liberal institutionalism), integration theories (neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism) and cognitive regionalism. Emergence of Regionalism: About State Preference Formation Chunyao Yi,working paper, 2007 university of Leeds Karl Deutsch defined integration as the attainment, within a territory, of a sense of community and of institutions and practices strong enough and widespread enough to assure, for a long time, dependable expectations of peaceful change among its population Conditions for integration: Karl W. Deutschs (1912 1992) name is close of synonymous with transactionalist as approach to integration as he was the leader of its main contribution Political Community and the North Atlantic Area from 1957. Also, he isolated four main tasks of integration (1968/192): 1) Maintaining peace, 2) attaining greater multipurpose capabilities, 3) accomplishing some specific tasks, and 4) gaining a new self-image and role identity. Then Deutsch goes on listing the background conditions for a successful integration process (1968 / 1992 p.): The conditions of integration can again be stated under four headings: (1) mutual relevance of the units to one another; (2) compatibility of values and some actual joint rewards; (3) mutual responsiveness; and (4) some degree of generalized common identity or loyalty.

Community-building was a precondition for institutional amalgamation. In contrast, for neofunctionalists like Haas, institutions were of central importance in fostering unification; institutional amalgamation preceded community formation. (Acharya, Amitav and Johnston Alistair Iain, comparing regional institutions: an introduction, working paper, Cambridge university press.)

Neo functionalism model of integration: Interest in regional institutions peaked in the 1970s, when Haas pronounced regional integration theory as obsolescent. This was due to the growing disunity within the EEC over the Middle East oil crisis, differing European responses to the American technological challenge, and the rise of trans-regional interdependence which threatened to overshadow regional integration schemes. The lull in the study of regionalism continued until the 1980s, when a new stage in the study of regionalism emerged, helped by a reviving EEC and globalization processes which created new linkages within and between regions. The third stage in the literature on regional organization was marked by the EECs (which in 1967 became the European Community (EC) and subsequently the European Union (EU)) progress toward a single market and a monetary union serving as the empirical backdrop. It was also marked by growing attention to sub regional institutions in the Third World, most notably the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the MERCOSUR group in South America. At the same time, the effects of globalization were felt in new and more intrusive kinds of intra-regional linkages which challenged or bypassed state authority, and the emergence of transnational civil society created an alternative framework for regional interactions challenging the state-centric models which had been the dominant theme in the earlier literature on regionalism. (Acharya and Johnston, 1994)

Basically, nonfunctional model of integration deals in following features

Challenge to traditional International Relations theory: re-placement of power politics of states by supranational consensus politics

Spillover as the most important driving process of integration: deepening of integration in one sector is expected to create pressures for further economic integration within and beyond that sector, leading to functional needs for a European authority.

As per the analysis of Joseph S. Nye, Neofunctionalism has following features that define its relevance in European integration.

Recognition of the crucial importance of politics in regional integration; A liberalpluralist conception of power; Bargaining by regionally-oriented pressure groups; The notions of task expansion and spillover (the tendency of regional groups to expand the scope of their issue areas and how cooperation over low-politics gradually produces cooperation over high-politics); and

The notion of a political community as an end product of regional integration. International regionalism (Boston: little brown, 1968)

The neo-functionalist literature placed more emphasis on institutional design features. One was the scope of issue areas, where neo-functionalism took a normative position that security issues should not be brought to the agenda of regional institutions at the early stages of interaction. Another was mandate, where Haas emphasis was on Supranationalism, a concept that

combines intergovernmental negotiation with the participation of independent experts and spokesmen for interest groups, parliaments, and political parties. Supranationalism was indicated by the attainment of a political community which involved a variety of constitutional and structural factors.1 (Acharya, Amitav and Johnston Alistair Iain, comparing regional institutions: an introduction, working paper, Cambridge university press, 2004)

Economic and political indicators: Description of model (independent and dependent variables): The development in the institutions responsible for the common goods throughout the region have to have increments in interdependence between member states followed by the development of a powerful regional bureaucracy, thus the desired spill-over could happen. Consequently, it leads towards the effective integration of common values as mentioned by Neo functionalists. The earliest theory, neofunctionalism, states that integration results from the need to shift specific functions away from exclusively nation-state control toward supranational institutions (Mitrany, 1975). These new units would hold the decision-making power once enjoyed by the nation- state (O'Brien, 1995). Neofunctionalism also states that the causal mechanism for this transfer is in the increasing complexity of governmental systems requiring a demand for highly trained specialists at the national level who would tend to solve problems at the international
1

Ernst B. Haas, International Integration: The European and the Universal Process, in Leland M. Goodrich and David A. Kay (eds.), International Organization: Politics and Process (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973), p. 399.1

level (Haas, 1958). Neofunctionalism, however, is important because it theorizes that integration depends on specific conditions found in earlier stages that promote further cooperation. While one can argue that the mechanism of spillover is ad hoc (Keohane and Nye, 1975), it mainly suffers due to its vagueness. It is believe that Haas (1961) is correct when he directs our attention to ripe conditions that enhance the ability of member nations to successfully come together to solve mutual problems. This success stems from the environment under which effective institutions were formed. But what are the conditions that lead to effective institutions? While Haas (1961) states that ideological-political homogeneity is the ideal condition for integration, our argument speaks to the homogeneity of the domestic economic institutions as a necessary condition for the ultimate formation of an economic union. Further- more, the integration process promotes institutional homogeneity that provides a stabilizing environment for both negotiations between national leaders and the relationship between national leaders and their own constituencies.( Feng and Genna,2003)

Analytical studies of parallelism in between SAARC and EU The neo-functionalist approach has been synonymous with the European integration process. This close link has been its strength in the formative years of the EC, and its weakness since the mid 1960s. The founding father of the approach was Ernst Haas, who wrote his introducing work The Uniting of Europe from 1958, and who continued to publish important contributions the next decade and a half. Other important contributions came from Leon Lindberg (1963), and Philippe Schmitter (1969, 1971). Haas starting-point was a criticism of David Mittranys functionalism from the 1940s. He combined functionalism with inspiration from Jean Monnets pragmatic approach to European integration. Contrary to the functionalists, Haas and his followers looked at regional integration, not universal, and they understood the integration process as political, not merely functional or technocratic. (Paper to be presented at the joint CCIS-CSE Workshop, April 27th 2006 in Aalborg Sren Dosenrode, CCIS) Haas original background conditions for regional integration were that the entities should poses pluralistic social structures, be substantially economic & industrial developed, and there should be a common ideological patterns among participating units. In other words Haas approach was limited to explaining integration in pluralistic democracies. But one has to remember, that integration has taken place, on a voluntary basis, among others in the North German Tax-Union and the United Dutch Provinces. In his cooperation with Philippe Schmitter, Haas tried to loosen the close binding to the European integration-project and give neo-functionalism a general applicability (1964). Their result was a model with background conditions (size of unit, rate of transactions, degree of

pluralism, elite complementarity); conditions at the time of economic union (governmental purpose, powers and functions of the new institutions), and the process conditions (style of decision making, growth rate of transactions, actors adaptability). Schmitter points the importance of the national politicians as well as the environment, thus accommodation to frequent raise criticism. But is culture a variable here? Could it be that Schmitter, like Haas, implicitly only looks at integration in cultural homogenous regions? Neither Haas nor Schmitter uses the concept explicitly, but cultural elements occur e.g. in Haas original model as background variables (pluralist social structures, common ideological patterns). In case of South Asia, The lack of congenial political atmosphere has tended to restrict the pace and the progress of SAARC. Increasing flows of trade, investment and financial transactions across borders but within some particular region may give rise to destabilizing flows of immigration, cross-border pollution, conflicts over water, pressure on electricity grids, public health risks and other problems. A demand then arises for regional organizations to serve as solutions to the collective action problems created by increased cross-border flows, though the form and degree of formalization may vary greatly (Pempel 2005). As countries within a region trade more intensively, for example, the conditions for an optimal currency region may be met, leading to demands for enhanced monetary cooperation, though states will have strong incentives to maintain exclusive currencies and private forms of money will proliferate, so that the formation of significant new regional currencies such as the Euro is likely to remain exceedingly rare (Cohen 2003: 178).

Though regionalism could be argued as not an effective substitute for bilateralism, in South Asia, SAARC activities can help member states to realize their common purpose better by providing larger economic space and a leverage to deal effectively with emerging global market forces as well as issues of peace, development and human security. (Amin, 2008)

Conclusion, In South Asian context the neo functional strategy is difficult to be replicated since every area including water, health, population, technology etc. are related to the national development and are nationally sensitive. Therefore high and low sectors are difficult to be distinguished. But, at the same time, it is necessary to look beyond the mere intergovernmental, state-driven process of regional cooperation and the essence of neo functionalism here could be relevantly applied. (Amin, 2008) In South Asia it is essential to move the cooperation beyond the official national confines especially in those areas beneficial to all or many if regional cooperation has to be meaningful. The present cooperation in SAARC under the Integrated Program of Action (IPA) is mostly confined to the official interactions and other programs are affected by lack of political support. Therefore it is necessary to go beyond official confines in IPA as well as promote cooperation in other areas having regional implications. This could be in the area of river water harnessing, industrial and technological up-gradation in a regional framework strengthening cooperation in national planning process and poverty alleviation etc. (Amin, 2008) Additionally, the South Asian Cooperation unlike the EU model gives more emphasis on intergovernmental cooperation rather than supranational integration.