Volume 4, issue 5, 2025
188
POLITICAL INTEGRATION: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND
CLASSIFICATION MODELS
Temirbaeva A.K.
Independent Researcher, Trainee Lecturer at the Uzbek State University of World Languages
aygerimtemirbaeva@mail.ru
Abstract:
Political integration is one of the key topics in contemporary political science,
encompassing processes of unification of political systems, institutions, and actors in the context
of globalization and regionalization. This article examines the theoretical foundations of political
integration, including functionalist, neofunctionalist, and intergovernmental approaches, and
proposes a classification of integration models based on institutional, functional, and normative
criteria. Special attention is given to analyzing contemporary challenges to integration processes,
such as nationalism, economic disparities, and institutional fragmentation.
Keywords:
Political integration, functionalism, neofunctionalism, intergovernmental approach,
constructivism, federalism, confederalism, European Union, economic integration.
Introduction
Political integration as a phenomenon has been studied in political science since the mid-20th
century, when processes of state unification, particularly in Europe, became a subject of active
academic analysis. Political integration is understood as a process through which various
political entities (states, regions, communities) form a unified political space with shared
institutions, norms, and values [1, p. 23]. In the context of globalization and increasing
interdependence among states, political integration gains particular relevance as it enables
addressing complex issues such as economic cooperation, environmental challenges, and security
concerns.
The aim of this article is to analyze the theoretical frameworks of political integration and
develop classification models to systematize diverse approaches to this phenomenon. The main
objectives of the study include reviewing key integration theories, identifying their strengths and
weaknesses, and classifying models based on institutional, functional, and normative criteria.
Theoretical Foundations of Political Integration
Political integration as an academic concept began to take shape in the 1950s in the context of
post-war European reconstruction. One of the first theorists to lay the groundwork for studying
integration was David Mitrany, who developed the functionalist approach [2, p. 103]. According
to functionalism, integration emerges from the gradual expansion of cooperation in technical and
economic spheres, which eventually leads to political unification. Functionalism posits that
shared interests and practical necessity encourage states to transfer some of their sovereign
powers to supranational institutions.
However, functionalism has been criticized for its excessive linearity and insufficient attention to
political factors. In response, Ernst Haas proposed the neofunctionalist approach, which
Volume 4, issue 5, 2025
189
emphasizes the role of elites, institutions, and “spillover” processes [1, p. 45]. Spillover suggests
that integration in one sphere creates pressure for integration in other spheres. Neofunctionalism
became the foundation for analyzing the European Union, considered the most successful
example of political integration.
At the same time, the intergovernmental approach, developed by Stanley Hoffmann, highlights
the role of nation-states and their interests in integration processes [3, p. 11]. According to this
approach, integration is possible only to the extent that it aligns with state interests, and any
attempts to transfer significant powers to supranational institutions face resistance. The
intergovernmental approach is particularly relevant for analyzing integration processes in regions
with strong national identities, such as ASEAN or MERCOSUR.
In recent decades, new theoretical approaches have emerged, such as constructivism, which
focuses on the role of norms, values, and identities in integration processes [4, p. 62].
Constructivism emphasizes that political integration depends not only on material factors but
also on social constructs that shape actors’ perceptions. For example, the success of European
integration is largely explained by the formation of a pan-European identity that complements
national identities.
Classification Models of Political Integration
To systematize the diverse manifestations of political integration, it is necessary to develop
classification models that allow analyzing this phenomenon based on various criteria. This article
proposes a classification based on three main criteria: institutional, functional, and normative.
Institutional models focus on the structure and functions of institutions involved in the
integration process. The most well-known institutional model is federalism, which assumes the
creation of a unified political space with a division of powers between central and regional
authorities [5, p. 34]. An example of federalism is the European Union, where institutions such
as the European Commission and the European Parliament perform supranational functions,
while member states retain significant autonomy.
Another institutional model is confederalism, in which states retain full sovereignty but delegate
certain functions to joint bodies. Confederal models are less integrated than federal ones and are
often found in regional organizations such as the CIS [6, p. 58]. A third institutional model is
hybrid forms, combining elements of federalism and confederalism. An example is ASEAN,
where integration is limited to economic and technical aspects but lacks deep political integration.
Functional models focus on the spheres of cooperation that facilitate integration. Economic
integration, for instance, is the most common form and includes the creation of free trade zones,
customs unions, and economic communities [7, p. 97]. The European Union began as the
European Economic Community, demonstrating the priority of economic factors in the early
stages of integration.
Political integration in a functional sense involves the coordination of foreign policy, the
establishment of joint governing bodies, and the harmonization of legislation. For example, the
EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) enables member states to coordinate their
actions on the international stage [8, p. 121]. Security integration, in turn, includes cooperation in
defense and combating transnational threats such as terrorism or cybercrime.
Volume 4, issue 5, 2025
190
Normative models of political integration focus on the values, norms, and identities underlying
integration processes. The liberal-democratic model assumes that integration is possible only
among states with shared democratic values [9, p. 22]. This model explains the success of the EU,
where democratic principles and the rule of law are mandatory conditions for membership.
At the same time, authoritarian models of integration exist, characteristic of regions with non-
democratic regimes. For example, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) demonstrates
integration based on pragmatic interests rather than shared values [10, p. 67]. Normative models
also include cultural aspects, such as the formation of a shared identity or overcoming cultural
barriers.
Contemporary Challenges and Prospects
Contemporary political integration processes face several challenges that complicate their
implementation. One of the key challenges is the rise of nationalism and populism, which
undermine trust in supranational institutions. For example, Brexit demonstrated how national
interests can prevail over integration goals [11, p. 1259]. Economic disparities between states
also create tensions, particularly within the EU, where more developed countries, such as
Germany, face the need to subsidize less developed economies.
Institutional fragmentation poses another challenge. In a multipolar world, integration processes
are often fragmented, leading to the creation of competing regional blocs [12, p. 67]. For
instance, rivalry between the EU, EAEU, and ASEAN illustrates the difficulties in achieving
global integration. Additionally, technological changes, such as digitalization and the
development of artificial intelligence, create new opportunities and challenges for integration,
requiring harmonization of regulations in areas like cybersecurity and data protection.
The prospects for political integration depend on the ability of states and institutions to adapt to
these challenges. Hybrid models combining elements of federalism, confederalism, and
functional cooperation may serve as the foundation for future integration processes. Furthermore,
the development of public technologies, such as blockchain, could facilitate the creation of
transparent and efficient institutions, enhancing trust in integration.
Conclusion
Political integration remains one of the most complex and multifaceted topics in contemporary
political science. Theoretical approaches such as functionalism, neofunctionalism, the
intergovernmental approach, and constructivism provide diverse lenses for analyzing this
phenomenon. Classification models based on institutional, functional, and normative criteria
allow for the systematization of integration processes and the identification of their key
characteristics. Despite numerous challenges, such as nationalism, economic disparities, and
institutional fragmentation, political integration continues to play a crucial role in addressing
global issues. Future research should focus on studying hybrid integration models and analyzing
the impact of new technologies on integration processes.
References:
1.
Haas E. B. The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950–1957.
Moscow: Progress, 1958. pp. 23, 45.
Volume 4, issue 5, 2025
191
2.
Mitrany D. The Functional Theory of Politics. London: Martin Robertson, 1975. pp. 103–
104.
3.
Hoffmann S. The Obstinate State: Essays on Europe. New York: Oxford University Press,
1966. p. 11.
4.
Wendt A. Social Theory of International Politics. Moscow: INION, 1999. p. 62.
5.
Elazar D. Exploring Federalism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987. p. 34.
6.
Kubicek P. Commonwealth of Independent States: Integration or Illusion? Political
Science, 2009, no. 2, pp. 45–60.
7.
Balassa B. The Theory of Economic Integration. London: Allen & Unwin, 1961. p. 97.
8.
Smith M. The European Union’s Foreign Policy. Brussels: Peter Lang, 2004. p. 121.
9.
Moravcsik A. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1998. p. 22.
10.
Dragneva R. The Political Economy of Eurasian Integration. London: Routledge, 2013. p.
67.
11.
Hobolt S. The Brexit Referendum: Why Britain Voted to Leave? Journal of European
Public Policy, 2016, no. 23(8), pp. 1259–1272.
12.
Fawcett L. Regionalism in World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. p. 67.
