Task

2. Europeanisation
Defining Europeanisation
  Defining Europeanisation is not an easy task, as the extensive writing on the subject also might
imply. Olsen makes an attempt to summarize the different usages of the term Europeanisation, and
presents these in five points, whereas the third has made its mark as the most used, relevant and
influential. The one in which Europeanisation is viewed as the penetration of regional integration on
domestic actors, institutions and organizations.

  One rather famous definition of the concept is the one by Radaelli (2003) where he
defines Europeanisation as a process of diffusion, construction and adaption of domestic political
processes, policy discourses and ways of doing things, to European changes and integration. This is a
long and complex definition, almost making the concept more diffuse than clear. Vink and Graziano
have made an attempt to shorten the definition, viewing Europeanisation as 'domestic adaption to
European integration'. However, in their article, following this short and concise definition comes an
own section devoted to explaining all the different nuances which this definition entails. Actually
making the definition even more complex than Radaelli's one.

  These are just a few of the large number of definitions that exists on the concept. A common
denominator amongst most definitions of Europeanization however, seems to be that domestic
politics, policies and/or polity are somehow affected by or adapt to what goes on at the European
level. In addition, some researches have emphasized the importance of not reducing Europeanization
to a strictly 'top-down' phenomenon. They underline the importance of understanding that in addition
to the domestic field being affected by and adapting to European level changes and processes, actors
at the national level also affects what goes at the EU level. In this sense, Europeanisation becomes a
circular process, from national to supranational to national level again. For example; from national
agenda-setting, to EU decision-taking, to domestic implementation.

  I short, it becomes clear that most researchers on Europeanisation are concerned with explaining
reality of change in Europe. One way of doing so it by taking advantage of theoretical tools in form of
organisational theoretical approaches.

Theoretical approaches and empirical examples

  Even though much of the same area and actors are part of the research subject, theoretical
accounts of Europeanisation takes a quite different approach than the traditional theories of
European integration. One the one hand, traditional theories of European integration have been
concerned with explaining the assumed sui generis characteristics of the EU, and with untangling the
confusion regarding whether it is the member-states or the EU level institutions that are the most
powerful in the European integration process. In addition, more traditional researchers have treated
the EU institutions as dependent variables. Perceived them as the results that needs to be
explained. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni however argues that rather than viewing the EU institutions as
dependent variables, and in order to understand the complexity of the situation, they should rather
be viewed as intervening and/or independent variables in the process of Europeanization. In addition,
as Bulmer claims, Europeanisation is 'a phenomenon that need to be explained'.

Olsen is one of whom favoured taking an organisational theory approach to better untangle the
complex processes of Europeanisation. By taking an organisational approach to the topic, one is
better provided with the necessary tools needed in order to understand the processes, and to create
general knowledge about the topic. The organisational theory in matter is the New
Institutionalism. Hall and Taylor identify three strands of New Institutionalism, which will now be used
in order to try to explain Europeanisation and to provide empirical examples of the concept.
Rational Choice Institutionalism

  The basic assumption of rational choice institutionalism is that actors, be that institutions,
organizations or for instance individuals, are ultimately rational. This means that actors has a set of
hierarchically ordered, predefined preferences. These actors are fully aware of all possible actions
available, and also the potential solutions and outcomes, on which they might base their decisions
and their hierarchical order.

  Another central concept of the rational choice institutionalism is the transaction-cost approach.
Actors are not only fully informed about their potential actions, solutions and outcomes, but also
informed about these actions transaction-costs. Taking the transaction-cost approach into account,
this provides a powerful explanation as to why states agreed to a supranational cooperation, and to
become members of the EU. In an increasingly complex worlds, states are often faced with so-called
"wicked-problems" that crosses both geographical and policy area borders, and which are difficult
and costly for states to battle alone. In addition, as rational actors, states might become aware that
their own predefined preferences are more easily and cost-efficiently achieved by embarking on a
supranational cooperation with other states.

  Most actions done by the different actors in the EU can be used as examples of rational action.
However, with the increasing use of QMV in the Council and the effective end of the Luxembourg
compromise, RC institutionalists might face problems with explaining why states might be in need of
implementing policies or legislation, or undergo changes which they are initially opposed of.

Historical Institutionalism

  Historical institutionalism might provide us with an explanation of the above mentioned problems
with the rational choice theoretical strand. It does so by introducing concept such as "path
dependency" and the "lock-in"-effect. Actors are rational, but they are also bounded by the historical
consequences which their actions might entail. Becoming a member of the EU, or for instance
agreeing on the monetary cooperation of the EMU, might entail unforeseen consequences for the
actors during the course of time. The actors might become "locked-in" by the choices they make, and
the most rational and cost-effecient choice or course of action in the future will usually be to continue
on the path on which they started out. Levi makes use of the analogy of a tree in order to create a
visual of such processes. From the same trunk there might be several branches, some smaller and
some bigger than others. Even though it might be possible for a climber to climb back down, or to
clamber from one branch to another, the most likely scenario is that a climber will continue on the
branch on which it has started. Because this will be the most cost-efficient, and the one that possibly
will get the climber to the top fastest.

  There is also a democratic aspect connected to the historical consequences which an action
might entail. Is it democratically correct and responsible of elected officials to embark on
cooperations that will constrain later elected officials which might not be in favour of the same
particular cooperation?

  However, making the decision to become a member of the EU also provides the national actors
with possibilities of affecting the decisions that are being made, and the policies and laws that are
being formed at the European level. Thereby exemplifying how membership of the EU also provides
opportunities for "bottom-up" processes, which would not be present without embarking on the path
of membership. Thereby also presenting later elected officials with several choices and opportunities
which they would initially not be in possession of.

  Historical institutionalism also includes the three T's for understanding the process of
Europeanisation: time, timing, tempo. Accession for new member states into the EU is one example
where the three T's come to the fore. The time in which one might apply for membership matter. For
instance, will events at the domestic level affect citizens percpetion of membership? The end of the
Cold War might for instance have provided Finland with the opportunity of applying for membership,
once the fear of agetating Russia might have diminished somewhat. The timing for applying for
membership might also matter. One example of this could be the increasing and extensively more
specified aquis commitaire for the "newer" member countries than the original cast of the ECSC. The
CEE countries had a longer list of necessary changes to do, and measures to meet, Europeanisation
to go through, before being granted membership than the other member states. Tempo also matters
with regards to the Europeanisation of new member states. The Nordic wave of accession was a lot
more rapid and problem free than the CEE wave, since the Nordic wave comprised of countries with
well established democracies and functioning economies.

Sociological Institutionalism

  This strand of institutionalism includes sociological aspects into the institution-term, such as
culture, norms, values, identity. What is important from this point of view is how sociological changes
might affect the material interest of actors. A process of Europeanisation on actors values and norms
might ultimately lead to a change in their hierarchically ordered material interests. Such changes
also has a timely aspect, where for instance length of membership in the EU might play an important
part. Or one might assume that length of non-membership also might have an effect, as in the case of
Norway. Never before as the percentage of Norwegian citizens being opposed to EU-membership
been higher, when there is over 40 years since our first application and we are celebrating the 20
year anniversary of our most recent referendum.

  Another way that length of membership might matter is if one assumes the presence of so-called
"cognitive filters" in peoples sub-consciousness. This is a term borrowed from pshycology which
basically entails that new information, learning, meanings etc. will be taken in or discarded
depending on the present information and values (the filters) one might have. Membership in the EU
might consequently therefore, after a while, function as a cognitive filter for actors, making for
instance opportunities for further integration or Europeanisation more attractive than it would have
been before.

  It has been argued that the sociological components of Europeanisation might not be as visible
as the more political or material ones. However, as Checkel argues, this does not mean that they are
not equally important. They are perphaps even more important since they might affect all preferences
and potential choices actors might have. Even so, the sociological opponents are not always easily
detectable, and are consequently over-looked in some of the Europeanisation research. However, if
one assumes a sociological point of view on processes of Europeanisation one might for instance
assume that Germany's choice to give up their powerful Deutsche Mark and Bündesbank in favour of
the Euro and the European Central Bank was because of alterations of their values, norms and
sociological preferences.

Summing up
  When using organisational theories, such as the different strands of New Institutionalism to view
the process and outcomes of Europeanisation it is nonetheless important to bear in mind that here,
as in many other fields, things are not necessarily clear-cut or black and white. Olsen warns us about
the "tyranny of dichotomies" with regards to using concepts, however this is also largely applicable in
this context. In order to understand the complex processes of Europeanisation, one might be in need
of making use of several of these theoretical strands at the same time, and it is important to bear in
mind that whilst they are in fact different, they are also overlapping. In addition, in order to
understand the processes in their entirety, one might make good use of the different theories at
different points in the process. For instance, rational choice can provide explanations for why states
decide to seek membership in the EU, as can sociological institutionalism. All three of them might
provide explanation for why states continue on the membership-path, and all three of them can
explain the differentiation that might occur in different processes of Europeanisation.