Understanding Regional Integration?? (Kelsey Hunter, Week 4 Substantive)

I agree with Christine's post below, that these readings left me more confused than when I began them. The Haas reading in particular gave me a bit of a headache, but by the end I did begin to understand at least why his article was so confusing.

After studying Realism and Liberalism, the theories regarding Regional Integration seem somewhat muddled and as Christine pointed out based on "what ifs." There is an explanation for this as Haas points out, since the three "pretheories" are not very successful and do not agree with each other on what regional integration looks like in the final stages. What Haas is trying to do is redefine the theories of regional integration (R.I.) in order to really determine what R.I. is and to apply the theory to multiple cases as well as predict new cases in the future. This is a very difficult task to undertake since there really is only one modern successful case of R.I., the EU. The path the EU took to become integrated is not a uniform path for all potential integrators to take, however Haas tries to determine what some of the independent variables would be in order for others to end up at a common destination (dependent variable). He determines that there are certain determinants- spillover, elite responsiveness, and bargaining styles that can be applied to answer certain questions about the action paths taken by different groups of states/institutions/regions.

The reason I liked the Haas reading was that he made a heroic attempt to devise a theory to explain and predict regional integration. While the theory was not as complete or clear cut as I would prefer as a student, I appreciated his excitement as to the possibilities a theory of regional integration could afford. The idea of computer simulation finally brought together all his variables in a way that made more sense to me. This potential predictive quality and the variables associated with Haas' argument make this "theory" a little more concrete and practical than Realism or Liberalism, even though they are easier to understand.