ABSTRACT
The debate of whether the European Union constitutes an n of 1 and whether as a consequence inductive generalizations from the study of the EU cannot lead to generally applicable knowledge is almost as old as the study of the EU. Much confusion has been created rather than solved by this debate. The best scholarship of the old structuring dichotomy in research on European integration – the debate between neo-functionalism (Haas 1964) and intergovernmentalism (Hoffmann 1966) – has always aimed at developing general theories and at looking at the EU from such a general point of view. The substantive theories at stake varied, however. In the case of neo-functionalism, it was a theory of societal modernization which largely relied on economic, political and social actors as primary agents for change. In the case of intergovernmentalism, it was a theory of international competition that saw states as the main agents. Whereas Haas stressed the unifying effects of modernization, Hoffmann argued that similar trends lead to different outcomes because they were transformed by largely differing national traditions and by the competitive nature of the international system.
