Neofunctionalism came next. It followed some of the arguments of functionalism (Haas, 1958). It too assumed the viewpoint that integration would best proceed internationally by working on areas of mutual interest, even if in small pieces and parts (sectors). Both functionalism and neofunctionalism presumed that individual loyalty to the original nation-states would weaken as people became aware that integration offered many positive benefits. The bulk of these benefits
would be best maintained and delivered by this new cooperative arrangement.
Functionalism and neofunctionalism differ from one another in several respects, however:
• Neofunctionalism is a theory of regional, not global, integration. “Concentrating
on a region in this way neo-functionalists have been able to achieve great parsimony of concepts and theories” (Evans and Newnham, 1998, 359).
• Functionalists were not much concerned with institution-building, but
neofunctionalists are.
• Neofunctionalists are attuned to the political implications and complications of strong integration because of a “spillover effect”: it would then include other related areas of action. Spillover integration would be very difficult to resist because of high levels of interdependency. Influential interest groups
within regional member-states would also begin to increase pressures to begin further integration.