The present essay will explore the dynamic and much contested concept of Europeanisation of European politics with a particular focus on the implications in Germany and France. In general, Europeanisation refers to the interactions between the EU and the member states and other countries. However, more recently the concept of Europeanisation has been applied in different ways and to different areas. The concept has also evolved over time as authors have come to consider different approaches and even stretched the concept to incorporate other aspects, which may not have seem relevant at first glance. However, Europeanisation can be distinguished from other concepts, such as European integration or convergence, although it can be difficult to separate the effects of Europeanisation from other sources of change, such as globalisation.
Europeanisation of European Politics
The present essay will explore the dynamic and much contested concept of Europeanisation of European politics with a particular focus on the implications in Germany and France among the other European countries. In general, Europeanisation refers to the interactions between the EU and the member states and other countries (Börzel and Panke, 2010, p.406). However, depending on the study topic and goal, Europeanisation has been understood and defined in different ways. Moreover, these differing explanations of the Europeanisation are interrelated and can overlap with one another (Korthals Altes, 2010).
As a starting point, Europeanisation has been often defined from an institutional perspective (Featherstone, 2003, p.13). According to Risse et al. (2001, p.1), Europeanisation can be defined as “the emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures of governance”, including political, legal and social institutions. This approach has been criticised on the grounds that it closely resembles the concept of European integration and does not acknowledge the importance of domestic change (Bache, 2008, p.15).
Another definition provided by Ladrech (1994, p.69, cited by Featherstone, 2003, p.12) considers Europeanisation as “a process reorienting the direction and shape of politics to the degree that EC political and economic dynamics become part of the organisational logic of national politics and policy-making”. While this definition has been considered somewhat loose (Featherstone, 2003, p.12), it is moving the concept of Europeanisation closer to the mostly adopted approach, which sees Europeanisation broadly in terms of domestic change brought about by EU membership or prospect of membership (Bache, 2008, p.9-15). This is essentially a top-down approach, which considers how EU-level institutions, processes and policies have an impact on the policies, institutions and political processes of the European states (Börzel and Sedelmeier, 2006, p.54). Bache (2008, p.1) has further argued that the differentiation between Europeanisation as the EU’s impact and European integration as the process of creating an EU-level polity has been widely accepted. In this sense, Europeanisation can be seen as a consequence of the European integration.
A central concept of the top-down Europeanisation is the ‘misfit’ theory, which considers an incompatibility between the European and the domestic policies, processes and institutions as necessary for the EU’s domestic impact (Börzel and Panke, 2010, p.409-10). For instance, the EU – German congruence with regards to the political system facilitated German adaptation whereas France due to its power concentration rather than division had to make far greater adjustments (Hix and Goetz, 2001, p.19).
However, incongruence alone is not sufficient to effect change. The member states’ mediating institutional characteristics, such as the number of veto points and supporting formal institutions can facilitate or hinder domestic change (Börzel and Sedelmeier, 2006, p.59-60). For instance, liberal governments and business actors in highly regulated member states, such as Germany, France or the Netherlands used EU’s policies to promote market liberalisation against strong domestic opposition (Hix and Goetz, 2001, p.13). Likewise, French women were empowered by the British public agency support to overcome domestic resistance by employers and trade unions to implement EU’s gender equality policies (Caporaso and Jupille, 2001, cited by Börzel and Panke, 2010, p.409).
Furthermore, sociological approaches argue that mediating factors such as domestic norm entrepreneurs, e.g. epistemic communities and cultural understandings facilitate socialization and learning (Börzel and Panke, 2010, p.410). For instance, Germany’s consensus-oriented and cooperative decision-making culture is considered to be facilitating for adaptation and domestic change (Heritier et al., 2001, cited by Börzel and Panke, 2006, p.60). Similarly, due to the litigious German culture, citizens are more likely to appeal to the courts against the deficient application of the EU law unlike in France where there is no such culture and hence litigations are much lower (Conant, 2001, cited by Börzel and Panke, 2010, p.410).
Europeanisation not only relates to the direct impacts on national states through legislation but influence can also be exerted indirectly. The development of EU-level structures for collective bargaining has added another level of interest representation. This has led to a wider consultation with the organised interests in France, which had a typical statist pattern (Avdagić and Crouch, 2006, p.204). Also gay and lesbian groups in Poland have used the EU to push for sexual minority rights despite the absence of any specific EU legislation (Börzel and Panke, 2010, p.408). Similarly, in his study of the German urban land development Korthals Altes (2010, p. 828) discovered that in a case where the court decided to uphold European regulations, this resulted in a much faster Europeanisation process.
The focus on the top-down processes in the conceptualisation of the Europeanisation has been challenged by several authors, such as Pasquier (2004, cited by Rogers, 2007, p.218) and Wallace (2000, cited by Bache, 2008, p.9). They argue that Europeanisation defined as the top-down process is a too narrow term and hence presents a distorted view of the dynamics associated with Europeanisation.
Consequently most authors have concluded that Europeanisation is a two-way process (Börzel and Sedelmeier, 2006, p.54). Member states not only ‘download’ or ‘take’ European norms, models and pressures, but also participate in the making of the rules by ‘uploading’ their own rules and practices to the EU level (Töller, 2010, p.438). For example, Germany was able to turn its air pollution regulation into an EU directive, which subsequently enabled German companies to comply with the standards more easily. Also states with limited bargaining and voting power, such as Belgium and Denmark has been successful in shaping EU’s policies (Börzel and Panke, 2010, p.407-13). On the contrary, the new accession countries, such as Poland experienced Europeanisation rather as a process of unilateral adjustment through the EU’s accession conditionality (Börzel and Sedelmeier, 2006, p.61).
Furthermore, Europeanisation process from below is being increasingly influenced by sub-national actors, such as regions (Pasquier, 2004, cited by Rogers, 2007, p.218) and non-govern-mental actors (NGOs) (McCauley, 2008, p.267-8). In an investigation of the harmonisation of asylum policies in France Monforte (2009, p.422-3) revealed that traditionally national NGOs have been Europeanising their networks and collective actions while also constructing new forms of mobilizations at the EU-level. This has further resulted in an increasing involvement of the public on issues handled by the EU. In another study Traxler and Brandl (2009, p.196-7) investigated Europeanisation of Wage Policy in the metal industry in Germany and the Nordic countries. They revealed that Europeanisation in this policy area had preceded European policies, such as the EMU. This implies, they argue, that in terms of coordination activities Europeanisation has been primarily brought forward by a bottom-up cross-border pattern setting rather than a top-down EU-wide coordination rule.
According to Börzel and Panke (2010, p.414-5), the two concepts of top-down and bottom-up are compatible rather than mutually exclusive. They indicate, however, that only few authors have attempted to integrate the two perspectives. Some authors have considered ‘shaping’ as the cause of ‘taking’ or vice versa (Heritier, 1996, cited by Börzel and Panke, 2010, p.414) while some studies have also identified the interactions between the success of ‘uploading’ and implementation (Börzel and Panke, 2010, p.407).
Trampusch (2009, p.370-90) brings the Europeanisation concept another step further by considering it as a heuristic concept comprising twofold processes – ‘Europeanisation by design/reform’, which concerns change initiated by the EU initiatives and ‘Europeanisation by default’, which considers the ongoing incremental change in domestic institutions independent from the EU. In her study of vocational education and training in Germany and Austria she concludes that ‘Europeanisation by default’ despite being driven by domestic actors rather than the EU can still be considered as Europeanisation as it also leads to the incorporation of EU policies in the long run. Similarly, governments of the new accession states adopted some European policies not because of EU pressure but rather due to the dissatisfaction with the existing situation and previous policy failure (Börzel and Sedelmeier, 2006, p.65).
Additionally, the concept of the Europeanisation has been stretched even further by Krotz (2007, p.389-404) who considers Franco-German parapublic practices to be a particular kind of Europeanisation. He argues that such practises as educational exchanges, ‘partnerships’ between French and German regional entities and a host of institutes and associations committed to Franco-German affairs constitute a structural component of the European polity.
Finally, Europeanisation has been considered as an external value. There are several dimensions to this perspective. The EU is actively seeking to export its forms of political organisation and governance to neighbouring and other countries, most notably through the EU’s enlargement policy with its Copenhagen Criteria and the EU’s neighbourhood policy (Börzel and Panke, 2010, p.408). External Europeanisation also refers to the EU identity, where many citizens are rethinking their identity as a result of the European integration (Wilson, 2000, p.23). Moreover, the citizens of the former Soviet Union countries identify the EU as a return to Europe after the communism (Börzel and Sedelmeier, 2006, p.67). From another perspective Europeanisation relates to the process of making Europe a distinct, coherent and strong entity (Olsen, 2002, cited by Korthals Altes, 2010, p.816).
To conclude, the concept of Europeanisation has been applied in different ways and to different areas. The concept has also evolved over time as authors have come to consider different approaches and even stretched the concept to incorporate other aspects, which may not have seem relevant at first glance. However, Europeanisation can be distinguished from other concepts, such as European integration or convergence, although it can be difficult to separate the effects of Europeanisation from other sources of change, such as globalisation.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Linda Vuskane (Author), 2011, Europeanisation of European Politics, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/510371
