Europeanization: Solution or Problem?

Abstract

Is there something new in recent research on Europeanisation? Or should we go back to what we already know about political integration in Europe and avoid the term? This article reviews recent work in four steps: the identification of the specific domain of Europeanisation; the relationship between Europeanisation, on the one hand, and governance, institutions, and discourse, on the other; the methodological problems and the models emerging in this new field of research; and an assessment of the results arising out of theoretical and empirical research. One theme throughout the article is that, in order to develop a progressive agenda, Europeanisation should be seen as a problem, not as a solution. It is neither a new theory, nor an ad-hoc approach. Rather, it is a way of orchestrating existing concepts and to contribute to cumulative research in political science. Europeanisation does not provide any simple fix to theoretical or empirical problems. Quite the opposite, it can deliver if approached as a set of puzzles. A problem in search of explanation -not the explanation itself (Gualini 2003). The conclusion is that Europeanisation has contributed to the emergence of new insights, original explanations, and interesting questions on three important issues: the understanding and analysis of 'impact', how to endogeneise international governance in models of domestic politics, and the relationship between agency and change. These three issues are prominent in the research agendas of international relations, theoretical policy analysis, and comparative politics. To contribute to major issues at the core of political science is a valuable result for a relatively new field of inquiry. Kurzfassung Gibt es irgendetwas Neues in der jüngsten

EU rules beyond EU borders: theorizing external governance in European politics

“…This points to a possible next step in the development of the external governance approach which may focus less on what the EU does in promoting its norms than, much akin to the research on 'Europeanization' (e.g. Knill and Lehmkuhl 2002;Radaelli 2004), on the domestic conditions for effective policy implementation in third countries. (Allen and Smith 1990: 20; see also Bretherton and Vogler 2006) or its constitution as a 'system of external relations' that is fragmented across pillars and levels of policy-making (Hill 1993;Ginsberg 1999).…”

Encounters with Europe in an Era of Domestic and International Turmoil: Is Turkey a De-Europeanising Candidate Country?

“…Hence, our sociological approach to Europeanisation refutes such a 'post-ontological' (Caporaso 1996;Radaelli 2004) research agenda through which the domestic effects of already established EU norms and institutions may be analysed. Intensifying relations with Europe, particularly the EU, make EU(rope) increasingly involved in the reconstructions of 'systems of meanings and collective understandings' (Cowles, Caporaso & Risse 2001) in European societies.…”

Europeanisation and Dynamics of Continuity and Change: Domestic Political Economies in the ‘Southern Periphery’

“…The second type of Europeanisation research focuses on Y (or domestic change) as its point of departure and adopts a bottom-up research design that aims to overcome the inbuilt bias of top-down research design, tending to find the EU input as the cause driving domestic change (Radaelli 2006;Quaglia & Radaelli 2007;Bulmer & Radaelli 2005;Radaelli & Franchino 2004;Bull & Baudner 2004). The criticism against topdown research design is that the incompatibility between the EU and domestic levels is taken as a structural variable, whereas 'the actualisation of this structural property (i.e.…”