• No results found

A good way to start mapping the multiple definitions of Europeanisation and „unpack‟ its internal compounds in order to arrive at a useful definition is to follow Robert Adcock and David Collier‟s (2001) distinction between „background‟ and „systemised‟ concepts.

According to Adcock and Collier (2001: 530), background concepts encompass the

„constellation of potentially diverse meanings with a given concept‟. Therefore, a background concept does not represent a clear and explicit definition. Quite the opposite, it covers all possible meanings and research subjects relevant to a wide community of scholars (historians, political scientists, anthropologists etc.).

Although „Europeanisation‟ as an „encyclopaedic‟ term (cf. Radaelli, 2004) is a legitimate one given that its meanings may vary across study fields and intellectual traditions (see below), the focus on a broad understanding of the term is, however, hardly useful for the special community of „European integration‟ scholars to whom this study is chiefly directed. Put otherwise, „Europeanisation‟ needs a systemised definition to have an operationalisable meaning. In this respect, a systemised concept refers to a specific formulation adopted by a particular researcher or community of specialists and „is usually formulated in terms of an explicit definition‟ (ibid: 530). The latter category thus allows scholars to speak the same language when they test, measure and make claims over a phenomenon‟s essence. As Sartori (1970: 1038) puts it, „measurement of what? We cannot measure unless we know first what is that we are measuring‟. In this context, systemised concepts are closer to answering the ‘what is’ question and, in so doing, they are better suited for investigation (i.e., measurement). „Europeanisation‟ as a systemised concept is more promising for „unpacking‟ the variegated processes and effects of European

38

integration and, its impact on the institutions and policies of the particular polity(ies) under investigation.

The next section discusses in brief the background conceptualisations of „Europeanisation‟

before elaborating on the more systemised meanings associated with the term in order to locate the most useful definition to underpin empirical analysis.

2.5.1. A background concept: Europeanisation in social sciences

In the language of Claudio Radaelli (2004: 2), Europeanisation as a background concept would refer „to all the possible meanings we may want to include in an encyclopaedia‟. As such, „Europeanisation‟ has varied over history, politics, society and economics (cf.

Mjoset, 1997; Olsen, 2002; Featherstone, 2003). In particular, scholars like Olsen (2002) and Harmsen and Wilson (2000) have classified the „multiple faces of Europeanisation‟ as encompassing understandings such as „modernisation‟, „transnationalism and cultural integration‟, „changes in external boundaries of Europe‟, „the political unification of Europe‟ and „the export of European institutions beyond Europe‟s boundaries‟ (cf.

Borneman and Fowler, 1997; Featherstone, 2003; Schimmelfennig, 2007).

To an extent all of these maximalist definitions have been subjected to critical evaluation by other scholars (cf. Buller and Gamble, 2002; Featherstone, 2003). Suffice to say, most of them have been found „guilty‟ of violating a great number of Gerring‟s criteria, most notably those of external differentiation and internal coherence (see Buller and Gamble, 2002). As most of these definitions incorporate terms that seem or are synonymous with other established notions such as „policy transfer‟, „diffusion‟, „political unification‟,

„integration‟, „enlargement‟ and „modernisation‟, „Europeanisation‟ becomes a neologism without a precise and unique meaning. Dirk Lehmkuhl (2007: 340) summarises the point well: „If understood in such an encompassing way, Europeanization loses its differentium specificum‟.

To be fair, all these meanings provide useful insights into a very complex phenomenon (i.e., European integration). Consequently, their virtues should not be disregarded.

Nonetheless, for a researcher interested in the transformative power of post-War II European integration it is very difficult to see where the added value of these meanings lies. As a result, they shall not be operationalised in this study. That said, there is a need for

39

a more systemised conceptualisation of the phenomenon, which will now be the focus of this critical survey.

2.5.2. A systemised concept (1): Europeanisation as a uni-directional top-down process

In the early stages of its exploration in EU studies, the concept of „Europeanisation‟

referred exclusively to the „top down‟ uni-directional pattern of relationships between the EU and its member-states and served a dual function. First, it illustrated EU policies and institutions as independent variables in domestic politics and, second, it referred to the processes by which domestic arrangements adapt to European integration (Caporaso, 2007:

23-27). Europeanisation was, accordingly, understood and theorised as a vertical process of

„institutionalisation‟ (Stone Sweet et al. 2001) of distinct patterns of EU governance in member states (cf. Ladrech, 1994; Meny et al. 1996; Börzel, 1999; Héritier et al. 2001;

Knill, 2001).

As noted earlier, the work of Robert Ladrech in Europeanisation of domestic politics and institutions: the case of France (1994) proved to be crucial to bringing the concept of Europeanisation into the language and attention of EU impact specialists. Ladrech (1994:

69) defined „Europeanisation‟ as: „an incremental 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‟.

In other words, domestic politics were being changed by the reaction of national organisations to the altered or altering context brought about by EU membership. The key concept was „organizational logic‟, by which Ladrech (1994: 71) meant the „adaptive processes of organizations to a changed or changing environment‟. This understanding implied a „top-down‟ direction of causation and identified „Europeanisation‟ as an incremental process of adaptation to EC/EU impulses. Whilst this definition is sufficiently differentiated from neighbouring semantic terrains (e.g., European integration, policy transfer), it remains somewhat structuralist since too much emphasis is placed upon

„organisations‟. In this way (and despite the high degrees of external differentiation, parsimony and field utility) this definition appears quite „old fashioned‟ and too narrow to gauge the extent of „Europeanisation‟.

40

In a slightly different vein, Adrianne Héritier (2001: 3) defined the phenomenon as a

„process of influence deriving from European decisions and impacting member states‟

policies and political and administrative structure‟. Whilst Héritier‟s conceptualisation covers many more features of domestic politics when compared to Ladrech‟s (1994), some might find it also a bit structuralist. Indeed, the role of agency and its active engagement in the politics of adaptation is not clear. Another shortcoming is the exclusive emphasis placed on the „member states‟. How can a researcher interested in the domestic impact of Europe on the candidate states operationalise such a definition? Let it be said explicitly then: while Héritier‟s definition exhibits a high degree of „external differentiation‟ (it has stable and legitimate boundaries), „field utility‟ (it does not encroach upon the semantic terrain of neighbouring concepts) and internal coherence (there is no contradiction between its defining components), the definition cannot be operationalised in this study due to its lack of explicit reference to the dynamic role of agency, as well as its relatively exclusivist scope (e.g., member states).

Much like Héritier and Ladrech, Tanja Börzel and Thomas Risse (2007: 485) have defined

„Europeanisation‟ in a „top-down‟ sense, „focusing on the domestic impact of Europe and the European Union‟. According to them, „Europeanization would refer to the „domestic impact of Europe‟ – the various ways in which institutions, processes and policies emanating from the European level influence policies, politics, and polities at the domestic level (be it member or non-member states‟ (ibid). At first glance, this definition exhibits many virtues. To begin with, this conceptualisation appears to score high both in terms of internal coherence and external differentiation since, first, the defining attributes („intention‟) of the term „fit‟ its characteristics („extension‟) well and, second, the conceptualisation does not encroach upon neighbouring terminology such as „policy transfer‟, „integration‟ or „institutionalisation‟. At the same time, Börzel and Risse attempt to subject their definition to „meaurement validity‟ by directing the analyst towards three particular domestic domains where s/he could gauge European impacts: „policies, politics and polities‟. Finally, this definition does not clash with the label of the term as it views Europeanisation as the domestic impact of „Europe‟ rather than merely of the „EU‟.

For all these reasons this conceptualisation appears (and for some scholars is) legitimate enough to underpin analysis of the domestic effects of European integration in the

41

Republic of Croatia. Though I do acknowledge the definition‟s important qualities, I nonetheless will not apply it for the following two main reasons. First and possibly most significantly, this „top-down‟ definition seems to violate the familiarity criterion as there is now some degree of consensus in the literature „over the need for the definition of

„Europeanization‟ to be broadly set‟ (Featherstone and Papadimitriou, 2008: 24). To be more precise, as noted from the outset, Europeanisation produces a complex ontology with the direction of domestic change being either „top-down‟ (the EU to the domestic level) and/or „bottom-up‟ (the domestic level to that of the EU‟). Indeed, an increasing number of Europeanisation studies have suggested that member-states „routinely pre-empt domestic adjustment by shaping an emergent EU policy in their own image‟ (Bache and Jordan, 2006a: 22; Börzel, 2005; Kassim, 2005; James, 2010; see below). For Klaus H. Goetz (2002: 4) Europeanisation is thus a „circular rather than unidirectional, and cyclical rather than „one off‟‟ process of domestic change. „With this complexity‟, Featherstone and Papadimitriou (2008: 24) maintain, „simple definitions appear elusive‟. Scholars such as Radaelli (2003) and Dyson and Goetz (2003a) have thus conceptualised the phenomenon as „all-encompassing‟, though crucial differences inform their definitional choices (see below). In short, opting for a narrow „top-down‟ (and possibly „old-fashioned‟) definition would seem to place the present thesis somewhat outside the contemporary Europeanisation debates. Second, a sceptical reader may also observe that this definition does not clarify the „missing link‟ (Goetz, 2000: 222) between European processes and domestic effects. In other words, it says little about the „trigger(s)‟ of domestic change (be it factors or actors); thus it appears to score low in terms of theoretical utility. For all these reasons, Börzel and Risse‟s (2007) definition (despite its advantages) cannot be applied in this thesis.

Apparently, all the aforementioned conceptions describe a process originated at the level of the EU and descending downwards to the national level. While they do not question this direction and logic of „intrusion‟, Buller and Gamble (2002: 17) define Europeanisation as

„a situation where distinct modes of European governance have transformed aspects of domestic politics‟. In this sense, Europeanisation is an end-state with a particular effect:

transformation. Such a postulation exhibits important qualities; yet it is not without its pitfalls. To begin with, the definition is sufficiently bounded and thus appears useful for the field of European integration studies. Given that it gives „analytical primacy to the

42

impact of European developments at the domestic level‟ (ibid: 18), it retains intact the key feature that differentiates it enough from neighbouring concepts such „European integration‟ and, therefore, causes minimal disruption to the related terminology.

Furthermore, it is internally coherent since no contradictory elements are included and the properties of the concept (intension) and the phenomena it covers (extension) correspond and/or logically relate to one another. Again, the definition does not contain endless qualifications and, therefore, seems quite parsimonious.

The said virtues notwithstanding, the definition seems to violate an important criterion:

familiarity. Given the fact that it crucially diverges from and/or clashes with the established usage of the term (Europeanisation as a process of change), the definitional emphasis on a teleological cum transformative essence stretches the concept further from the established wisdom that associates Europeanisation with a broad, rather than a narrow, range of effects. In doing so, this definition renders the concept an „exotic‟ option that is hardly identifiable in the domestic politics of adaptation. These, more often than not, are characterised by differential responses to EU impulses which, in turn, range from continuity to transformation (including inertia, accommodation and retrenchment; see below). If „Europeanisation‟ were to denote solely the state of „transformation‟, it would have been a least interesting case for investigation. As noted by Featherstone and Papadimitriou (2008: 23), „it is precisely the apparently asymmetrical effects of Europeanization, which can also be temporary and reversible, that prompt the interest in examining its processes‟. Because of its inability to capture such dynamism, this definition cannot be operationalised here.

In sum, all definitions discussed here exhibit both advantages and drawbacks. Yet, their pitfalls seem to outweigh their utility. Whilst all definitions are sufficiently „bounded‟ and, hence, do not encroach upon neighbouring terminology, they are, nonetheless, either too narrow, too structuralist, and/or quite „old-fashioned‟. Héritier‟s definition refers exclusively to member states and is thus unable to capture patterns of impact beyond the EU. Ladrech‟s definition concentrates heavily on organisations, disregarding therefore the crucial role of individuals. Lastly, the definitions put forward by Buller and Gamble and Börzel and Risse do not seem familiar enough for the academic community. In a way, all definitions seem to capture, however, certain bits and bytes of a highly complex

43

phenomenon. How can one operationalise, therefore, definitions with a limited, if not obsolete, analytical scope? For all these reasons none of these definitions (despite their qualities) can be employed in this study. The next section reviews the so-called „second generation‟ definitions with their emphasis on the interactive or recursive nature of Europeanisation processes.

2.5.3. A systemised concept (2): Europeanisation as an interactive two-way process

Common sense suggests that „Europeanisation‟ relates to the effects of European integration at the national level. However, an increasing number of academics have asserted that a sustained focus on both levels (EU-nation state) is required to better understand the circular flow of European integration (cf. Risse et al. 2001; Featherstone and Kazamias, 2001; Olsen, 2002; Dyson and Goetz, 2003a; Börzel, 2003, 2005; Bulmer and Burch, 2006; Caporaso, 2007; James, 2010). They emphasise that the relationship between the EU and its member states is not strictu sensu „a one-way street‟ (Börzel, 2005:

62). Instead, it is a complex, dialectical and recursive process that may entail feedbacks from the domestic level to the European level. The implication is that member-states may

„upload‟ (Börzel, 2005) or „project‟ (Bulmer and Burch, 2006) their own institutions, policy paradigms and practices to the EU level in a clear attempt to shape the „general trajectory of the European integration process in ways that suit their national interests‟

(Sepos, 2008: 6). They do so either because they wish to minimise the potential costs of adaptation emanating out of „misfitting‟ policies descending from „Brussels‟ and/or because they want to use European developments as external (and perhaps internalised) discipline and a catalyst instigating and legitimising domestic reforms (cf. Dyson and Featherstone, 1996; Hay and Rosamond, 2002; Featherstone and Papadimitriou, 2008).

In this sense, the nature of Europeanisation produces a complex circular and cyclical ontology since it appears to be both a cause and an effect. To put it in more a positivist way, the boundaries between independent and dependent variables collapse, as pointed by Tanja Börzel (2005). Risse et al. (2001: 3; emphasis added) defined „Europeanisation‟ as:

„the emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures of governance, that is, of political, legal, and social institutions associated with political problem solving that formalise interactions among the actors, and of policy networks specialising in the creation of authoritative European rules‟.

44

Set against Gerring‟s framework, Risse et al.‟s (2001) definition violates a number of important criteria. Firstly, Europeanisation defined as the „emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures of governance‟ encroaches upon the semantic terrain of an established and well-theorised concept: European integration. By connoting processes of institution-building and policy-making at the „European level‟, Europeanisation „steals‟ core definitional attributes from the term „European integration‟.

In doing so, it leaves the latter as „an empty category‟ while it becomes a neologism without a unique and innovative meaning. Europeanisation as „emergence‟ abuses thus the criterion of „field utility‟.

Secondly, the definition seems limitless or with no termination (Sartori, 1970) as it includes both the processes and politics at the European level and their effects on the nation-state. As such, the definition not only violates the parsimony criterion, but most importantly, it fails to demarcate sufficiently the concept‟s external boundaries. In other words, it severely mistreats the „external differentiation‟ criterion and as such appears stretched to the point of breaking. Third, familiarity and resonance are violated due to the fact that the definition diverts significantly from the established understanding and usage of the term. Consequently, it does not resonate well with the object of analysis in Europeanisation studies. Lastly, the particular emphasis on policy networks may lead the reader to mistake the otherwise multiple faces of „European governance‟ (Kohler-Koch, 1999) for only one mode (i.e., networks) which, in itself, is not an ever-present phenomenon (see also Radaelli, 2003: 29). All in all, Risse et al.‟s (2001) definition is to a great extent misleading, disruptive and possibly detrimental for the semantic terrain of other academics. Therefore, it would appear quite an „illegitimate‟ meaning to underpin analysis with reference to „the domestic impact of European regional integration‟.

The second definition in line with a broad, all-encompassing and circular understanding of

„Europeanisation‟ has been put forward by Claudio Radaelli (2003). He defines the phenomenon as entailing

„processes of (a) construction, (b) diffusion, and (c) institutionalization 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 making of EU public policy and politics and then incorporated in the logic of domestic discourse, identities, political structures, and public policies‟ (2003: 30).

45

Radaelli has provided the broadest and (probably) the most inclusive synthesis of the phenomena covered by Europeanisation. In the language of Sartori (1984), this definition belongs to a trivial sub-class of denotative definitions (i.e., definitions intended to seize the object) called précising definition given that it combines high degrees of „connotativeness‟

(high degree of intension) and „denotativeness‟ (increasing extension). In simple terms, the definition represents an „orchestration‟ of established concepts (Radaelli, 2004: 5). In effect, the inclusion of elements, such as construction, diffusion and institutionalisation, reflects the „wildly yielding and partly confusing richness of research‟ (Lehmkuhl, 2007:

339).

The concept of Europeanisation, so defined, is familiar enough to students of EU impact studies, and it seems theoretically and empirically useful as „it is broad [enough] to cover the major interests of political scientists, such as political structure, public policy, identitities, and the cognitive dimensions of politics‟ (Radaelli, 2003: 30). At the same time, Radaelli manages to attain a high degree of depth and inclusiveness (though this intention might appear as a defect and contradictory to the parsimony criterion; see below).

Despite the said advantages, this definition, in turn, is not without its defects.

First, in being a „catch-all‟ explenandum Radaelli‟s definition violates the parsimony criterion because its long intension, even if composed of closely related attributes, creates a

„cumbersome semantic vehicle‟ (cf. Gerring, 1999: 371). As Gerring (1999: 373) expounds, „A long neologism is an unseemly neologism‟; thus Radaelli‟s conceptualisation with its long listing of defining attributes seems amorphous.

Second, as Radaelli (2003: 31) himself notes, his analytical focus is on the European Union rather than „Europe‟. In a way, this choice (no matter how legitimate it may be for empirical reasons) seems to violate the resonance criterion (Gerring, 1999) given its ambiguity (Sartori, 1984: 35) with respect to the term‟s label. If „Europeanisation‟ is to denote solely EU impulses why not use Helen Wallace‟s (2000) far more precise terminology: EU-isation5? In other words, reducing Europeanisation to the EU generates further inconsistency in the meaning of the term – this time with respect to the relationship

5 Indeed, this is a critical line that can also be levelled against all definitions that relate the concept exclusively with the European Union (e.g., see Ladrech, 1994; Bache and Jordan, 2006a; Sedelmeier, 2006).

46

between the label and the object of analysis (referent). This is an important defect on which, more often than not, researchers turn a blind eye.

between the label and the object of analysis (referent). This is an important defect on which, more often than not, researchers turn a blind eye.