Europeanization and Policy Change. Theoretical and Empirical Insights

Middle East Technical UniversityCenter for European Studies

Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence Seminar Series 2011-2012

Ankara, 23 November 2011

Paolo R.Graziano

Bocconi University, Milano and IUSS-University of Pavia

Outline

• Europeanization research

• Conceptual issues

• Theoretical issues

• Methodological issues

• An empirical illustration

• Conclusion

Europeanization Research

• neofunctionalist, (liberal) intergovernmentalist and supranational governance approaches: main focus is the EU level

• Europeanization looks primarely at the domestic level and EU-national interaction

• Europeanization can be defined as a process of domestic adaptation (both bottom-up and top-down) to the EU

The ‘ups’…

• better understanding of:– EU policy-making– EU multilevel governance patterns – national policy-making

• Europeanization can (and has) been connected to:– EU and domestic policy analysis: policy change– EU polity building and national polity analysis: institutional

change– EU and domestic politics analysis: political actors’

strategies change

…and the ‘downs’

• conceptual confusion• ‘fuzzy’ methodology and vague causal links

– can change be detected?– what are the dimensions of change?– what are the explanatory factors of

change?• lack of comparative studies guided by a

common analytical framework

Conceptual issues

• Europeanization is not convergence nor mere EU integration

• top-down and bottom-up process (i.e. domestic adaptation to the EU which entails both construction and diffusion of EU institutions and policies)

• process is different from its (direct and indirect) effects

Theoretical issues

• No Europeanization theory yet exists…• …only some theoretical elements, i.e. the

‘goodness of fit - GoF’ hypothesis.• In order to fully test the GoF hypothesis, some

clarification is needed:– distinguish between institutional and policy GoF– clear definition of the object of study – clarify the mechanisms of possible EU-State interaction– clearly define the ‘dependent variable’ (ex. policy

structure and possible degree of change)

Methodological issues

• Need to progress from a ‘fuzzy’ methodology to:– differentiation in the nature of effects (direct

and indirect)– counterfactual or historically-rooted reasoning

(looking for alternative pressures for change)– broad and comparative research design

(possibly covering both construction and diffusion phases of the process)

Europa, Europae: an empirical illustration

• How does the EU matter in domestic welfare state reforms?

• What is the degree of change in domestic welfare state policies?

• Which European resources are used?• Who is using Europe (what kind of actors and

what is their role with respect to the reforms)?• More in theoretical terms, does the GoF

hypothesis hold if we adopt a broad comparative perspective?

A three step research design

• Common analytical framework based upon:– domestic policies characterization in relation to EU

policies (fit or misfit?)– domestic adaptation to Europe (have domestic

policies changed in order to ‘comply’ with Europe? What degree of change?)

– mechanisms of Europeanization or usages of Europe (how has Europe been used by domestic actors in order to support domestic reform processes?)

Case selection

• ‘Bottom-up’ case selection

• Main (implicit) criterion: full coverage of the various ‘welfare state worlds’

– Scandinavian (Finland, Sweden)

– Anglosaxon (UK)

– Continental (Germany, France, Netherlands)

– South European (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal)

– Central/Eastern Europe (Czech Republic, Hungary)

+ Candidate Countries (Turkey)

Policies analysed

• Pension policy

• Social assistance

• Employment

• (Re)conciliation

Methods and sources

• Neoinstitutional process-tracing (in particular, the historical variant of neoinstitutionalism: key feature is the timing and sequencing of policy evolution)

• Sources:– policy document analysis– semidirective interviews with key informants

Indicators• Policy change analysis (fit/misfit):

– objectives– principles– procedures– instruments

• EU-support (mechanisms/usages): – Eurobarometer data– decision-makers opinions (obtained via

interviews and newspaper articles’ analysis)

EU resources

• Legal (i.e. regulations, directives)

• Financial (i.e. funds – primarily structural funds)

• Cognitive (i.e. ideas)

• Political (i.e. legimitation)

Usages of Europe

• Cognitive (cognitive resources)

• Strategic (legal and financial resources)

• Legitimising (political resources)

Research findings (1)

• Scandinavian WS: limited (procedural) change connected to limited cognitive usage (EU cognitive resources)

• Anglosaxon WS: limited (procedural) policy change connected to strategic usage (EU legal resources)

• Continental WS: limited (both procedural and objective-related) policy change connected to cognitive and strategic usage

Research findings (2)

• Southern Europe WS: extensive policy change (all four policy structure dimensions involved) connected to a variety of usages (cognitive, strategic, legitimising)

• Central/Eastern Europe WS: policy and country-based change (between limited and extensive) connected to a variety of usages with a strong focus on financial and cognitive resources

• Candidate countries WS: extensive policy change (all four policy structure dimensions involved) connected to a variety of usages with a strong focus on cognitive and financial resources

Discussion

• Variation in both degree of policy changes and types of usages of Europe depends not only on the degree of policy ‘fit/misfit’…

• …but also on the membership status…• …and on the overall appreciation of the EU which is

mirrored by the support of ‘pro-Europe’ domestic coalitions of actors.

• The EU is mainly a reform initiatior (employment and conciliation policies) or reform supporter (pensions and social assistance)

Conclusion

• For over a decade, Europeanization has been a vital new research agenda in European studies, comparative politics and international relations

• In order to be still innovative, Europeanization research needs to:– take the ‘bottom-up’ dimension seriously– ‘go local’ – focus on the mechanisms– go (further) beyond the EU

References

• “Europeanization and Domestic Employment Policy Change: Conceptual and Methodological Background”, Governance, 2011, Volume 24, Issue 3, 581-603.

• Edited volume in the RECWOWE Series (Palgrave, 2011): “The EU and the Domestic Politics of Welfare State Reform: Europa, Europae” (with Sophie Jacquot and Bruno Palier)

• European Journal of Social Security Special Issue (1/2011): “Letting Europe In. The Domestic Usages of Europe in (Re)conciliation Policies” (with Sophie Jacquot and Bruno Palier)