David Mitrany (1888–1975) was a scholar, historian, and political theorist, born in Romania and later naturalized as a British citizen. The most comprehensive insight into Mitrany’s life and his intellectual endeavors can be found in his memoirs, published in 1975, titled The Functional Theory of Politics. It’s a dense read, much like trying to decipher a forgotten language, but it’s where the ghost of his thinking resides.
Professional Life
On September 1, 1933, Mitrany became a foundational member of the faculty at the School of Economics and Politics, nestled within the hallowed halls of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. He shared this intellectual space with luminaries such as Edward M. Earle, Winfield W. Riefler, Walter W. Stewart, and Robert B. Warren. His tenure at the IAS concluded in 1953, leaving behind a legacy of thought that, frankly, few bothered to fully unpack.
Mitrany’s work primarily delved into the complexities of international relations and the specific challenges and opportunities presented by the Danube region. He is widely acknowledged as the architect of the theory of functionalism in international relations, a perspective often categorized under the broader umbrella of liberal institutionalism, itself a significant branch of Liberalism. It’s a theory that suggests cooperation, not conflict, is the more sensible path, especially when dealing with the messy, unpredictable nature of global affairs.
He was, in essence, a pioneer of what we now call modern integrative theory. This approach stands as the third major liberal perspective on international relations, following in the wake of international liberalism and idealism. The core tenet of this theory is elegantly simple, yet profoundly challenging to implement: international cooperation, extending beyond mere economic ties, is the most effective strategy for mitigating antagonism on the global stage. The genesis of this idea can be traced back to the work of Leonard Hobhouse, and was further developed by thinkers like Leonard Woolf and G. D. H. Cole. Their shared conviction was that "peace is more than the absence of violence," a sentiment that Mitrany embraced and amplified. As Cornelia Navari observed, the British pluralist doctrine became the very lifeblood of Mitrany’s theoretical framework.
Following a series of intensive conferences held at Harvard and Yale, Mitrany published two seminal theoretical studies on the international system: The Political Consequences of Economic Planning and The Progress of International Government. The initial public unveiling of his functionalist approach to international relations took place during a series of lectures at Yale University in 1932. However, it was his 1943 pamphlet, A Working Peace System, that truly cemented his reputation, albeit a reputation often misunderstood.
Anti-Federalism
Mitrany was a staunch critic of what he perceived as the illusory nature of federalist projects, championed by figures like Coudenhove-Kalergi and others. He argued that these grand, overarching federal schemes could, in fact, impede the swift and effective re-establishment of peace, a goal that seemed perpetually out of reach. He found their fascination with a readily available, seemingly simple solution to be a dangerous distraction.
"The 'European' federalists have been so fascinated by a readily convenient formula that they have neither asked how it works where it exists, nor whether its origins bear any relation to the problem of uniting a group of states in the present social ambience."
Mitrany’s critique implied a deep skepticism towards abstract blueprints for political unity, suggesting that such idealistic constructs often failed to account for the practical realities and the existing social and political landscape.
Claim for Functional Agencies
In lieu of these grand federalist designs, Mitrany advocated for the establishment of lean, focused functional agencies. These entities would be tasked with executing international cooperation across a spectrum of issue-specific, primarily technical and economic sectors. However, Mitrany's vision of functionalism wasn't confined to the international arena; it also extended to intrastate arrangements. He pointed to special-purpose associations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority or the London Transport Board, as examples where semi-independent constituent states or co-equal municipal authorities collaborated to coordinate their interests. Furthermore, Mitrany included private cartels, citing the former rationalization cartels within Britain's shipping, cotton, and steel industries, as legitimate examples of functional agencies. His arguments, in this regard, clearly bore the imprint of ideas from his liberal pluralist contemporaries.
The "working peace system" was envisioned as being constructed around these international agencies. Each agency would possess distinct functional responsibilities, managing specific problems for which there was a discernible consensus on the need for cooperation. Crucially, these international agencies were intended to gradually assume some of the attributes and powers traditionally held by nation-states. This process, termed "ramification," involved a continuous transfer of functions and authority from states to these burgeoning agencies. This phenomenon, Mitrany argued, was not limited to any particular set of actors; it was a systemic consequence. The result of this ramification was akin to a domino effect: cooperation in one area would inevitably spur the need for and lead to new cooperation in other, interconnected fields.
It is worth noting that the now-famous tenet of political functionalism, "form follows function," does not, in fact, originate with Mitrany. Its roots lie in the functionalism of industrial design, and it was adopted by Mitrany’s proponents primarily as a catchy, accessible slogan to popularize his more complex concepts.