How Does the Concept of Europeanisation Seek to Explain Policy Adaptation in the EU Member States - Case Study Example

How does the concept of Europeanisation seek to explain policy adaptation in EU member s? I. Introduction The role of European Union to the financial and social development of its member- states has been always of great importance. According to Archick (2005) the European Union can be considered as a ‘treaty-based, institutional framework that defines and manages political and economic cooperation among its 25 member states(Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom)’. However, the European Union is not just a ‘consortium’ of countries that discuss in common on certain issues. It is mainly a political, financial and social co-operation1 which provides its members with a series of rights but also of obligations which guarantee their financial and political strength but also the Union’s existence and operation. Current paper examines the phenomenon of Europeanisation as can observed in general but particularly in Britain, Germany2 and France (three of the most important and powerful members of EU). The particular policies of these countries regarding the application of EU’s rules in their internal environment are also examined in order to formulate an integrate result of the national policies of the above states compared to the strategies required by the European Union in order for its policies to be successfully applied in all member states. II. Europeanisation – Definition and Characteristics The definition of europeanisation presents a lot of differences in the literature. This fact can be explained by the existence of significant theoretical differentiations between the scientific researchers that have worked on this area. In this context, according to Massimiliano (2000), the process of europeanisation has been explained by the political scientists at least in four different ways: a) As a process of centre-building, of state-building, which implies a centralisation of powers and functions at supranational level (Haas 1958) or anyway a “political institutionalisation at European level” (Caporaso, Jupille 1998), b) As a process which serves for the already existing national states to co-ordinate policies (Hoffmann 1966; Moravcisik 1998), c) as a process which adds a new level of decision making without deleting the old ones, but contributing to a re-definition of the relations between different level of decision and between different kinds of actors (Sharpf’s “multilevel polity”, 1994), or d) as a process of domestic changing in reaction/adaptation to European institutional patterns and policy making, be it “an adaptation of national institutions to changes occurred in Ec/Eu policies” (Jeffery 1996, 216 quoted in Morlino 1999, 2), or “a convergence of governmental policies, decision making and implementation structures, elite and mass behaviour, elite and mass values” (Leonardi 1995, 185-6, quoted in Morisi, Morlino 1999, 2). Moreover, as Paraskevopoulos and Rees (2002, 2) accept, Europeanization3, ‘defined as the “emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures of governance” refers to the complementary notions of opening the structures of the traditional nation state to the supranational level, and, consequently, to the adaptation of domestic policy-making structures to the EU multi-level system of governance’. The above view is in accordance with that of Ladrech (2001, 1) which stated that Europeanisation is a term ‘that has increasingly insinuated itself into the literature on European Union policy-making; in its broadest meaning, it refers to responses by actors - institutional and otherwise - to the effects of European integration’. Moreover, as Bulmer et al. (2004) state ‘Europeanisation is not simply the product of a widening in the array of policies carried out at EU level but it also occurs as a result of processes that are more market-driven: a third macro-dynamic; a process that ran parallel to the creation of the single market was an emergent pattern of regulatory competition’. In this context, Bulmer et al. (2004) came to the following definition of Europeanisation: ‘Europeanisation consists of processes of a) construction, b) diffusion and c) institutionalisation of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ‘ways of doing things’ and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process and then incorporated in the logic of domestic (national and subnational) discourse, political structures and public policies’. Figure 1: Governance, policy and the mechanisms of Europeanisation (Bulmer et al., 2004) MODE OF GOVERNANCE TYPE OF POLICY ANALYTICAL CORE MAIN MECHANISM Negotiation Any of those below Formation of EU policy Vertical (uploading) Hierarchy Positive integration Market-correcting rules; EU policy templates Vertical (downloading) Hierarchy Negative integration Market-making rules; absence of policy templates Horizontal Facilitated coordination Coordination Soft law, OMC, policy exchange Horizontal According to Ladrech (2001, 3) europeanisation is a term that has become ‘increasingly employed to label or describe a process of transformation, but whether of domestic dynamics as a result of European integration, or of EU institutions themselves, consensus remains unachieved’, as witnessed by the definitions that have been given to this process in the literature: ‘a) de jure transfer of sovereignty to the EU level, b) sharing of power between national governments and the EU, c) a process by which domestic policy areas become increasingly subject to European policy-making, d) the emergence and development at the European level of a distinct political system, e) a set of political institutions that formalises and routinises interaction among the actors, and the growth of policy networks specialising in the creation of authoritative rules, f) extending the boundaries of the relevant political space beyond the member States’. The above types of definitions given to europeanisation also reveal its particular characteristics as well as its interaction with the national policies of the member states. Figure 2 – Europeanisation and National Policies (Massimiliano, 2000) III. Policies of Britain, France and Germany from a European Union Perspective Generally, France has been very supported of the European – Union idea. At a first level this can be explained by the fact that this country has considered the EU area as an area of its influence (both in monetary and political issues). It should be noticed here that traditionally this country’ has been somewhat reluctant to any enlargement of the European Community/Union as it feared that its influence would diminish, but also that the EU would dwindle into nothing more than a free market zone – exactly what it believes the British have always wanted; The following reasons can explain this country’s fears: First, the fear of losing its historical leadership of the Union. While France felt confident of its leading role in an EU of 15 members, this would have to change in an EU of 25; second, the fear of undermining the French model of big government and high taxes, with enlargement bringing in more low-wage, low-tax countries; finally, the fear of having more countries with an Atlanticist foreign-policy orientation in the EU’ (Rieker, 2005). However, France has been proved as the country with the most integrated net of rules regarding the application of EU law although a recent decision of the French population showed that some aspects of the European Union – even very fundamental ones, see the rejection of the European Constitution last year in France – can be doubted by the interested parties (the populations of the member states). On the other hand, Britain4 has been always sceptical regarding the European Union’s policies. This fact is also proved by the study of Fairbrass (2000) who tried to examine the level of adaptation of UK to the European Union environmental rules. In this context, it is stated that the development of British environmental and biodiversity policy ‘reflects activity in the European and international arena referred to above, although Britain has tended to be more positive towards the latter than the former; nevertheless, EU membership5 has ‘Europeanised’ British environmental policy, producing profound changes; this transformation has occurred despite the British attitude to the EU, perceived to be ‘awkward’ and ‘sceptical’. For a variety of historical, trading, and colonial reasons Britain has been continuously and consistently ‘at odds’ with EU ideals and institutions’. In any case, since 1973, the UK Government, ‘along with other national governments, has engaged in an extensive legislative process of policy negotiation and bargaining in a shared system of EU governance beyond the state; membership of the EU brought the need for the UK Government to develop internal procedures for arriving at an agreed national policy position to be negotiated at EU level’ (Carter, 2002). For the above reasons, Britain should be less reluctant to certain EU rules and try to follow the overall strategy (as set in the European Union framework) in order to support the EU’s existence and operation. Regarding the general policy of Germany towards the European Union, this has been always characterized by a sense of enthusiasm and continuous efforts to achieve a complete integration with the EU. However, it is observed that uniquely for Germany, engagement in Europe has also been challenged by virtue of the costs and burdens of unification (which have also severely tested the German model from within) and by its being financially stretched by its paymaster role in the European Union. In this context, ‘the parameters of a possible German European policy may have shifted away from the congenial embeddedness of the past’. Moreover, it should be noticed that a "tectonic shift" has occurred in which German and European politics are drifting apart, thereby changing the relation of Germany to the process of European integration’ (Chandler, 2003). The recent decrease in the rate of development of German economy can be also viewed as another aspect of negative influence of the EU’s aspects in the internal environment of the state. IV. Connection between states and europeanisation The influence of europeanisation to Great Britain’s policies has been rather limited. As Schmidt (1997, 169) admits UK has experienced ‘comparatively little change in response to Europeanization’ both in macroeconomic and in microeconomic level. More specifically, it has been considered that in the macroeconomic sphere, ‘Britain has retained its traditionally liberal and international approach to macroeconomic policy-making and limited its commitment to European monetary integration, having found it anything but a shield against global forces (as the 1992 exit from the Exchange Rate Mechanism [ERM] of the European Monetary System attests); in the microeconomic sphere, Britain has limited its exposure to EU-generated change not only through its negotiated opt-out from the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty but also because deregulation and privatization came before the European pressures; but British industry has been left to sink or swim on its own, as the government exposed it to greater international competition and the vagaries of the market without Frances level of government support and takeover protection or Germanys business cooperation and labor concertation, and it has sunk more often than not’. In the above context, it is noticed that ‘it is only recently, since its exit from the ERM, that the British economy has begun to thrive again, aided by the performance of foreign-owned firms and those British firms that managed to survive, as well as by its greater labor flexibility, which has made it highly attractive to foreign direct investment’. The current rate of development of the British economy despite the delays that can be observed in the European Union’s financial policies proves that the choice of UK to remain out of the ‘eurozone’ is being justified in a long term basis. Specifically for UK, a very characteristic national policy which proves the efforts done in order to come to an equal point with the rules stated in the European Union’s treaties (and the other legislative texts) is the one related with the establishment and the protection of immigrants in the British land. In this context, it is stated that although the UK ‘certainly has integration problems, its commitment towards positive race relations as a policy strategy has been successful in two ways; first, it has had a beneficial effect on housing policy by imposing controls on landlords and discouraging negative side-effects like the black rental market, which is widespread in Italy; secondly, these measures indirectly afford immigrants protection and social rights to appeal against discrimination, not only in housing but also in employment’. As for the case of France, Schmidt (1997, 169) considers that the country ‘has undergone the most fundamental change in response to European economic imperatives; having been more vulnerable to global market forces and more buffeted by the challenges of international competition than either Germany or Great Britain, europeanization through monetary integration and the single market became, in the view of the French government, the only effective shield against globalization and the only way to stabilize the economy and promote economic growth’. However, despite the above efforts it seems that the major problem for this country today6 is that ‘the successful transformation in macro- and microeconomic spheres has precipitated a crisis in the socioeconomic sphere; while the economy has been turned around and the business-government relationship transformed, unemployment has grown (hitting a postwar high of 12.8 percent in February 1997), wages have stagnated, and social benefits have decreased’. Germany can be considered as a slightly different case, regarding the procedure and the time framework of adaptation in EU policies. In this context, it has been observed that Germany ‘which has always been more internationally oriented and globally competitive, has so far had to change comparatively little in response to European integration, either in the macroeconomic or microeconomic realms’. More specifically, it is noticed that for Germany, ‘Europeanization has represented more of a reinforcement of the countrys traditional macroeconomic hedge against global forces than a new protection against them, as has been the case for France; in fact, as the lead European economy with the lead currency and the leadership role in monetary policy through the Bundesbank, it has tended to impose its own macroeconomic patterns and prejudices on the rest of Europe’. However, even under the above condition, the last years the German formula for economic success has been set under question. It seems that ‘the costs of unification and the pressures of global competition weigh heavily as Germany suffers from too-expensive products, too-high labor costs, and an unemployment rate that is at its highest rate of the last 40 years, while in-country investment (foreign and domestic) declines, productivity slows, and innovation drops; moreover, the traditionally consensual, tripartite business-labor-government relationship is becoming more conflictual as businesses, worried about declining competitiveness and eroding profits, push for greater labor flexibility and workers push back, seeing their jobs leave the country and their benefits legislated or bargained away’ (Schmidt, 1997, 169)’ VI. Conclusion The position of Britain, France and Germany towards the Europeanisation7 seems to be stable although the turbulences that can be noticed in the internal environment of all the above states. More specifically, it has been noticed that the above states have all participated in very important initiatives regarding the establishment and the enlargement of European Union. However, the effects of this activity have not been always the predicted one. Moreover, it seems that in certain points the national policies have been differentiated from the EU’s perspectives and have formulated a ‘national’ framework of regulation which has been considered as necessary in order for severe problems to be successfully faced. The above behaviour of these member stated should be considered as justified by the circumstances, however, it should be noticed that the EU’s rules should be transformed and updated in order to meet the current needs of all its states and not to respond to temporary or limited situations. References Archick, K. (2005). The European Union in 2005 and Beyond. The library of Congress Bulmer, S. J., Radaellin, C. M. (2004). The Europeanisation of National Policy (in Bulmer et al., Member States and the European Union, Oxford University Press, 2004) Carter, C. The Formulation of UK-EU Policy Post Devolution: A Transformative Model of Governance? Europa Institute, University of Edinburgh, Paper No. 3, Devolution and European Union Policy Making Series, October 31, 2002 Cini, M. (2004). The Europeanisation of British Competition Policy. Conference on ‘Britain in Europe and Europe in Britain: the ‘Europeanisation’ of British Politics?’, Sheffield Town Hall, Friday 16, July 2004 Clasen, J. (2002). Modern Social Democracy and European Welfare State Reform. Social Policy and Society, 1-11 Dell’Olio, F. (2004). Immigration and Immigrant Policy in Italy and the UK: Is Housing Policy a Barrier to a Common Approach towards Immigration in the EU? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(1): 107-123 Fairbrass, J. EU AND BRITISH BIODIVERSITY POLICY: AMBIGUITY AND ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (University of East Anglia and University College London), CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000-04 Jaquot, S., Woll, C. (2003). Usage of European Integration – Europeanisation from a Sociological Perspective. European Integration online Papers, 7(12) Kerwer D., Teutsch, M. Elusive Europeanisation: Liberalising Road Haulage in the European Union. Max-Planck-Projektgruppe Recht der Gemeinschaftsgüter, Bonn, 2000/11 Ladrech, R. (2001). Europeanisation and Political Parties: Towards a Framework for Analysis. Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation, No. 2/2001, School of Politics, International Relations and the Environment (SPIRE), Keele University, UK Massimiliano, A. (2000). The Europeanisation of conflicts: Theoretical perspectives. European Summer School in Comparative Politics Certosa di Pontignano (Siena, Italy) Paraskevopoulos, C., Rees, N. (2002). Europeanization, Adaptational Pressures and Social Learning (in Structural and Environment policies): Cohesion (Greece, Ireland, Portugal) and CEE (Hungary, Poland) Countries in Comparative Perspective. ECPR First Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, Section 8: “Governance in the EU”, Bordeaux, September 26-28, 2002 Rieker, P. (2005). French foreign policy and the limits of Europeanisation The changing French position on EU enlargement. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs Schmidt, V. A. (1997). Discourse and (Dis)integration in Europe: The Cases of France, Germany and Great Britain. Daedalus, 126(3): 167-183 Tulmets, E. (2002). Towards a multi-bilateral enlargement policy? German assistance to Central and Eastern Europe at the crossroads with European aid programs. Centre Marc Bloch Berlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westernisation [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom [2] http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/European_Union [3] http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja04tertrais [4] http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v41/ai_7693195 [5] http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/21/news/farm.php [6] http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp [7] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/France_votes_no_in_EU_referendum [8] http://selene.uab.es/_cs_iuee/catala/obs/Working%20Papers/wp212002.htm [9] http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/eu-a19.shtml [10] http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/European+Union [11] http://www.isop.ucla.edu/euro/countries/eu/index.asp [12] http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1638_281/ai_90469048 [13] http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:6LusuJ4IdgkJ:www.epsnet.org/2004/pps/Delmartino.pdf+France+and+europeanisation+and+policy+adaptation+and+article&hl=el&gl=gr&ct=clnk&cd=10 [14] http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/C_2002325EN.003301.html [15] Read More