Vink 2003 What is Europeanisation

7/27/2019 Vink 2003 What is Europeanisation

1/13

what is europeanisation? and other questions on a

new research agenda[1]

maarten vink

WHAT (VERY BRIEFLY) ISEUROPEANISATION?

http://www.essex.ac.uk/ECPR/publications/eps/onlineissues/autumn2003/research/vink.htm

The concept of Europeanisation enjoys increasing popularity within the study ofEuropean integration. Although there is considerable disagreement with regard to whatit actually is, the bulk of the literature speaks of Europeanisation when something innational political systems is affected by something European. Scholars study theadministrative adaptation of national states to (future) membership of the European

Union; the implementation of EU directives; and, from a wider perspective, changeand resilience in the structures and identities of nation-states under pressure fromdevelopments at the European level. Hence, a working definition of Europeanisationmight be domestic change caused by European integration.

This, and other notions of Europeanisation, are currently being explored in what hasbecome a major new agenda for research[2]. The provisional definition given aboveobviously leaves us with many unanswered questions, such as what kind of change isEuropeanisation? What is it not? What is 'European' about Europeanisation? Wheredoes it come from? What does it do to us? After introducing Europeanisation and thedifferent conceptual controversies, this article proceeds with a section on the new

institutionalist approach to the question of 'how Europe matters', followed by a sectionon the question of how Europeanisation relates to (theories of) European integration.This paper aims to outline the main questions related to the new research agenda ofEuropeanisation, to formulate some preliminary answers to these sometimes thornyquestions, and finally to state some conclusions on where we should go from here.

WHY A NEW RESEARCH AGENDA?

Scholars of European integration increasingly employ the concept of Europeanisationto assess the European sources of national politics. This shift away from direct study

of European institutions towards a more indirect approach via the national politicaldomain has been evident since the mid-1990s in collections on the institutionaladaptation of member states to EU membership (Hanf and Soetendorp, 1998; Kassimet al, 2000). A new research agenda focusing more generally on changes in national

political systems that can be attributed to European integration has now evolved (seeGreen Cowles et al., 2001 and Featherstone and Radaelli, 2003 for two authoritativecollections).

In contrast with the liberal intergovernmentalist stress on the domestic sources ofEuropean politics (Moravcsik, 1993, 1998), the new Europeanisation research agendahas provided the study of European integration with a 'Second Image Reversed'

(Gourevitch, 1978). This new agenda contests (or amends) not only theintergovernmental paradigm and its focus on 'grand bargains', but more generally all


2/13

traditional approaches to European integration. After all, classic neo-functionalism(Haas, 1958), its contemporary counterpart, supranational governance (Stone Sweetand Sandholtz, 1997), and to a lesser extent the multilevel governance approach(Hooghe and Marks, 2001), all tend to concentrate on European institutions and theiroutput in terms of European policies.

The Europeanisation research agenda has undoubtedly enriched the study of Europeanintegration. Not only has it highlighted a number of previously under-researchedquestions related to the domestic implementation of EU policies, but it now focuses onwider changes in the 'organisational logic of national politics and policy-making'(Ladrech, 1994: 70; cf. Harmsen, 1999; Falkner, 2001). This means that scholarsincreasingly study aspects of national politics that have traditionally been assumedless subject to European influence, such as political parties (Ladrech, 2002), partysystems (Mair, 2000), local government (De Rooij, 2002), refugee policies (Lavenex,2001) or citizenship (Checkel, 2001; Vink, 2001). Finally, the study ofEuropeanisation processes are not restricted to EU member states only, but also take

place in non-members Switzerland and Norway (Mach et al, 2002) and in candidatecountries in Central and Eastern Europe (Grabbe, 2001).

SO WHAT KIND OF CHANGE IS

EUROPEANISATION?

Brzel (1999: 574) defines Europeanisation as 'a process by which domestic policyareas become increasingly subject to European policymaking.' This definition has

been criticised for limiting the domestic impact of Europe to changing policy

practices, and thus neglecting the more indirect ways in which European integrationaffects domestic politics. Drawing upon Ladrechs (1994) broader definition,Radaelli's (2003: 30) conception of Europeanisation refers to

processes of (a) construction, (b) diffusion and (c) institutionalization of formal andinformal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ways of doing things, andshared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the making of EUdecisions and then incorporated in the logic of domestic discourses, identities, politicalstructures and public policies.

Although this definition does underline the importance of change not only in the

output of political systems (public policies) but also in the underlying structures andidentities, it is unlikely to survive as a clear definition of Europeanisation. Itsspecification of both how and to what extent Europe impacts on national politicswould seem more an empirical question than a defining element, and, thoughimportant, arguably renders the definition too broad. More concisely, Hix and Goetz(2000: 27) define Europeanisation as 'a process of change in national institutional and

policy practices that can be attributed to European integration.'

AND WHAT IS IT NOT?

To avoid the danger of conceptual stretching we need, as Radaelli (2003) notes, tospecify not only what Europeanisation is, but also what it is not. Europeanisation


3/13

should not be confused with convergence, or harmonisation, or political integration.Convergence must not be used synonymously with Europeanisation because there is adifference between a process and its consequences (Radaelli, 2003: 33). There mayhave been convergence in the monetary policies of the states that participated inEconomic and Monetary Union (Sbragia, 2001). Yet, European regimes may be

converging, as in the case of citizenship policies, not as a result of initiativesemanating from Brussels, but as a response to domestic considerations (Freeman andgelman, 1998). Harmonisation of national policies is often seen as an important goalof European integration, but empirical research suggests that Europeanisation is oftenmanifest in a 'differential' impact of European requirements on domestic policies(Hritier et al, 2001). Understanding, finally, why countries pool and delegatesovereignty (Milward, 1994; Moravcsik, 1998) is not the same as understanding thespecific dynamics, or even the unexpected consequences, this process of politicalintegration brings about at the domestic level. Europeanisation is crucially related tothe feedback process of European integration. In this regard Risse et al (2001: 1) areclearly the exception in defining Europeanisation as 'the emergence and developmentat the European level of distinct structures of governance' (emphasis added). Thisdefinition diverges from most of the literature on Europeanisation because it does notrelate necessarily to the domestic level, and looks very similar to such concepts as'European integration' (the process whereby national political systems become moreclosely linked within one European system) and 'Communitarisation' (the transfer ofcompetencies from the national to the European Community level). Naturally,Europeanisation cannot take place without 'Europe', without some kind of Europeanlevel 'structures of governance'. Yet the whole point of the new research agenda is thatinstituting bodies such as the European Commission or the European Parliament, andadopting treaties and secondary legislation, do not tell us much (or at least not the

whole story) about what this means for the political organisation of Europe. Theireffectiveness remains to be observed. To signify the importance of emergent Europeanstructures of governance we need to compare them with (traditional) nationalstructures of governance, and analyse the supposedly changing modes of decision-making, policy practices and political identities. We will return to this important pointin Section 6.

WHAT IS 'EUROPEAN' ABOUT

EUROPEANISATION?

The concept of Europeanisation is seemingly monopolised by scholars of the processof unification between the member states of the European Union, and concentrates onrequirements coming from Brussels. Yet, it must be recognised that 'Europeanintegration' in itself covers a wider range of processes and institutions.Europeanisation is more than just EU-isation. Think of such institutions as theEuropean Free Trade Area (EFTA), the Organisation for Security and Co-operation inEurope (OSCE) and the Council of Europe (COE). These institutions are often highlyintertwined with the European Union in terms of organisation and even identity.Perhaps more importantly, by not restricting the concept of Europeanisation solely tothe impact of the EU, we can apply the same methodological tools to larger processeswithin Europe, and to other cases of regional integration. In this way we can embrace

the theoretical argument that views the European Union not as a unique phenomenonrequiring a sui generis explanation, but as an advanced instance of regional co-


4/13

operation (Moravcsik, 1998: 4-5; cf. Caporaso, 1999: 161).

WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?

Many scholars distinguish the new research agenda of Europeanisation fromtraditional approaches to European integration by emphasising its exclusively top-down approach. In the words of Hix and Goetz (2000: 3-4),

to be able to understand the impact of European integration on domestic systems itdoes not matter whether delegation is determined by domestic government

preferences, driven by transnational economic actors, or 'cultivated' by supranationalentrepreneurs. What matters for domestic actors and institutions is how the delegationto the European level changes policy outcomes in the domestic arena.

Indeed in all Europeanisation research there is undeniably a dominant Europe-to-

national element visible of the kind suggested by Hix and Goetz (and despite theadoption of a somewhat awkward definition of Europeanisation, this is even the casefor all the empirical chapters in Green Cowles et al, 2001).

At face value, such a top-down approach would imply that we need to look at, let ussay, domestic policy A or domestic structure X and see how much it has changed

between time t0 and t1 (before and after European integration in a given policy area).However, approaching Europeanisation exclusively from a 'top-down perspectivemay in the end obscure the more complex two-way causality involved in Europeanintegration (Brzel, 1999: 574; but see Brzel, 2002: 195). After all, even when EU

policies strongly affect domestic policies, these policies are the result of among

other things political action by domestic actors such as governmental representativesor interest groups that shift domestic issues to the European level (see Putnam 1988).This means that in order to study Europeanisation we need to concentrate on changesat the domestic level. But in order to understand how these changes come about weshould also take into account which actors are interested in playing the 'European card'

by shifting issues to the European level. Moreover, some basic insights into thedynamics of European integration should help us to understand why Europe is (or isnot) involved in certain policy fields, or relevant to particular domestic political issues.

For example, one of the classic distinctions in European integration theory, is thatbetween 'negative integration' and 'positive integration', which leads to the observationthat European integration involves both market-making and market-correcting policies(Scharpf, 1999). Negative integration follows the rationale of the common market andhas a deregulatory or 'market-making' nature in that it demands that states comply withthe principles of the internal market. It can be quite effective in achievingliberalisation in such fields as competition policy, by removing tariffs and other

barriers to trade, often in tandem with supranational agencies such as the EuropeanCommission and the European Court of Justice.

Positive integration, by contrast, is an attempt to counteract the unwanted side effectsof liberalisation processes through re-regulation at the European level. It is 'market-

shaping' because it tries to intervene in the economy, in such areas as consumerprotection, environmental policy, or safety at work, and it involves a broader


5/13

institutional adaptation to a specific European model at the domestic level (Scharpf1999: 45). Of course there are also areas where 'the underlying conflicts of interest

between the member states only allow it to adopt policies which are vague and moreor less symbolic' (Knill and Lehmkuhl, 2002: 259). Free movement of persons, forexample, has created pressure for 'flanking measures' in the field of asylum policy, but

so far has not led to much binding legislation (Lavenex, 2001). Softer modes of EUgovernance such as the open method of co-ordination are the most recent answers tothese conflicts of interest, and are now being adopted in such fields as employmentand immigration (e.g. Commission of the European Communities, 2001).

WHAT DOES IT DO TO US?

Knowing that there are European policies, rules and norms, how do these actuallyaffect domestic politics and policies? To answer this question, Europeanisationscholars have almost without exception reverted to the broad spectrum of theories that

fall under the umbrella of the so-called 'new institutionalism'. One might even go sofar as to say that the Europeanisation research agenda as such exemplifies theinstitutionalist turn in the political science of the 1980s and 1990s (Hix and Goetz,2000: 18; cf. Brzel and Risse, 2003; Olsen, 2002).

Institutional approaches can be characterised most concisely by the notion that'institutions matter'. Institutions are classically understood as the formal rules, standardoperating procedures and organisations of government. In the 'new' understanding,however, an institution also encompasses informal norms, routines and conventions.In as far as institutions are seen as norms or collective understandings that constitutethe self-images and preferences of actors, one may see a clear link with the

constructivist turn in International Relations theory (Checkel, 1998: 326, 341). Theseemingly banal claim that institutions matter and influence relevant political

behaviour must be understood primarily as a reaction to post-war behaviouralism andrational choice, which approach politics from a rather atomised conception of theindividual. Moreover, as it is through the actions of individuals that institutions havean effect on political outcomes, new institutionalists need to answer the question howinstitutions affect the behaviour of individuals (e.g. March and Olsen, 1989; Hall andTaylor, 1996).

There are basically two kinds of response to this question. The cultural approach'emphasizes the extent to which individuals turn to established routines or familiar

patterns of behaviour to attain their purposes' (Hall and Taylor, 1996: 939). Politicalbehaviour is explained largely on the basis of what has been termed a logic ofappropriateness. Such a 'thick' understanding of institutions contrasts with a muchmore 'thin' logic of expected consequences where individuals act strategically torealise their preferences (March and Olson, 1989: 23). This logic of action is termed acalculus approach because institutions have an impact 'by altering the expectations anactor has about the actions that others are likely to take in response to orsimultaneously with his own action' (Hall and Taylor, 1996: 939). Individual actioncan then be seen as being at least partly exogenous to institutions and explained asstrategic behaviour. Neither the identities nor preferences of actors are altered by the

larger institutional setting in which action takes place.


6/13

The thick and thin understandings of institutions, or the corresponding cultural andcalculus logics of action, result in what is generally acknowledged as two contrastingstrains of new institutionalism: sociological and rational institutionalism[3]. Whenconnecting these new institutionalisms with the study of Europeanisation we need, itseems, to come to terms with two problems. The first concerns the compatibility of the

two strains. According to March and Olsen (1998) the logic of appropriateness and thelogic of consequentialism go together perfectly well. What, however, would such asynthetic model imply and how useful is it? Second, the institutionalist focus does notentail a teleology of European integration (Bulmer, 1998: 368). What, then, does aninstitutional analysis of Europeanisation tell us about the nature of Europeanintegration? These two questions will be answered in the next two sections.

WHY CHOOSE BETWEEN THICK AND THIN

EUROPEANISATION?

The contrast between appropriateness and consequentiality, between thick and thinEuropeanisation, can best be explained through an example. One can think of theimpact of European citizenship norms on domestic nationality debates. Checkel (2001:180) hypothesises that the emergent consensus towards dual nationality within theCouncil of Europe in the case of Germany will either lead domestic actors to abandonthe dominant ethnic conception of German nationality, or that it will 'only' limit the

possibility of sticking to the traditional model without actually affecting the givenpreferences. In this particular case, it is apparent that at the moment, theEuropeanisation of domestic citizenship policy is limited, due to the tentativeness ofthe emergent European norms (Checkel, 2001: 195-197; cf. Vink, 2001). Having

established that sociological and rational institutionalism offer two contrastingaccounts of how Europe matters, however, gives rise to the question of how bothpathways relate to each other. Do they offer explanations for different phases ofdomestic change or are they mutually exclusive? The first 'synthetic' view seems to befavoured among scholars of Europeanisation (e.g. Brzel and Risse, 2003; Checkel,2001: 196; Knill and Lehmkuhl, 2002; but note the outspoken choice of a sociologicalinstitutionalism of Risse et al, 2001: 15). This consensus goes back to March andOlsen's notion that each political action involves appropriateness and consequentiality.'Political actors are constituted both by their interests, by which they evaluate theirexpected consequences, and by the rules embedded in their identities and politicalinstitutions. They calculate consequences and follow rules, and the relationship

between the two is often subtle' (1998: 952).

Notwithstanding its intuitive appeal, this 'synthetic' position might perhaps be over-encompassing from a theoretical perspective. A parsimonious account ofEuropeanisation should, after all, not conceal the great discrepancy between creating,or making the best of, new European opportunity structures (calculus) and adopting anew set of preferences, or even a new identity (cultural). To give an example, there isquite a difference between governments using Europe to circumvent nationalconstraints on immigration policies (Guiraudon, 2000), on the one hand, and nationaldecision-makers adopting a 'post-national' way of thinking about migrant inclusion(Soysal, 1994), on the other. This is not to suggest that we should take up a position of

(renewed) theoretical dogmatism. On the contrary, an important task of empiricalstudies would be to determine the relative weight of the cultural and calculus


7/13

approaches in explaining Europeanisation, or domestic resilience, for that matter (Hixand Goetz, 2000: 18-20).

WHAT DOES IT TELL US ABOUT EUROPEAN

INTEGRATION?

Perhaps one of the most obvious shortcomings of the Europeanisation research agendais its failure to relate to the traditional integration literature. To an extent this isunderstandable given that its 'domestic politics' perspective contrasts with the classicapproach to European integration, as explained above. A comparativist's perspectivedoes indeed shed a necessarily different light on European integration (Hix, 1994; cf.Gourevitch, 1978). Yet, and apart from sometimes focusing too much on technicalimplementation details, scholars of Europeanisation run the risk of missing the bigger

picture by over-emphasising differences in processes of change across Europeancountries. Accordingly we need to remind ourselves of the key questions that are atstake, and hypothesise how our results might relate to the 'grand theories' of Europeanintegration.

It goes without saying that the traditional unit of analysis in world politics thenational state is being increasingly challenged or 'hollowed out' by processes ofglobalisation, internationalisation or regionalisation (Rhodes, 1994). The case of theEuropean Union is one of the most advanced instances of nation-states workingtowards an 'ever closer union' (EC Treaty, Preamble) and seemingly becoming evermore porous. In questioning the state of the state, therefore, the Europeanisationresearch agenda first of all responds to the general concern of 'unit variation' in

contemporary political science (Kahler, 2002). The key task at hand is to measuremore completely the degree to which state porosity currently prevails.

More specifically regarding the European case, the viability of the sovereign state assuch has been in question since the early days of post-war European economiccooperation. Although the endpoint of the integration process has never been aunivocal 'United States of Europe', even a quasi-federal trajectory would indeedsignify the beginning of the end of the nation-state as the dominant unit for politicalorganisation. For example, Jean Monnet, the first President of the High Authority ofthe European Coal and Steel Community, advocated supranational competencies onlyin certain economic sectors, but not without seeing the potential for further integration.

Such 'spillover' from limited to wider economic cooperation forms the core of the so-called neo-functionalist theories of European integration (Haas, 1958). These theoriesare functionalist to the extent that they acknowledge that specific goals, such asexchange rate stability, can sometimes only be achieved by taking further actions,such as wider monetary cooperation. The hollowing out of the state in this model isthen preordained by the fact that member states are 'resolved to ensure the economicand social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barrierswhich divide Europe' (EC Treaty, Preamble).

With regard to the logic of institutionalisation, neo-functionalism and itscontemporary counterpart, supranational governance, underline the importance of

transnational activities. 'Where cross-border activities are of increasing importance,we expect to find the creation and growth of supranational governance. () Rising


8/13

levels of cross-border transactions generate demand for EC rules and disputeresolution' (Stone Sweet and Sandholtz, 1997: 311). Although supranational theoriesdo not necessarily preclude actor-centred strains of institutionalism (see e.g. Pierson,1996), they do tend to emphasise the broader cultural environment in which decisionsare being made. European organisations and rules are increasingly taken for granted

and structure the behaviour of national actors. Hence we might connect those 'thicker'forms of Europeanisation, as hypothesised by sociological institutionalism, tosupranational theories of European integration (cf. Stone Sweet et al, 2001: 6).

A contrasting model of European integration is provided by intergovernmentalisttheory. Here Europeanisation is viewed as contributing not so much to the demise, butrather to the rescue of the nation-state. 'The surrenders of national sovereignty after1950 were one aspect of the successful reassertion of the nation-state as the basicorganisational entity of Europe' (Milward, 1994: 438). According to Moravcsik (1993:474), a proponent of so-called liberal intergovernmentalism, 'the EC can be analysedas a successful international regime designed to manage economic interdependencethrough negotiated policy co-ordination.' What matters for understanding theEuropean Union are the preferences and power of its member states because theseexplain the choices of sovereign governments to shift decision-making powers toEuropean institutions. By implication, because member state governments remain inthe drivers seat, European integration is by no means preordained to result in a federal'ever closer' union. The persistence of national power, on the contrary, suggests thatthe disappearance of the nation-state remains unlikely (see Moravcsik, 1998 for afuller account).

Looking more closely at the domestic impact of European integration,

intergovernmentalists depart from two-level theories where national executives aresimultaneously involved in international negotiations and bargaining with domesticinterest groups. Governments, or powerful groups within the executive, can achievemore optimal outcomes at the international level if they convincingly show that theirhands are tied by domestic commitments. More importantly, they can avoid blame athome for unpopular policies by pointing to international package deals and the need tolive up to international obligations (Putnam, 1988). One could argue that Europeanintegration redistributes domestic political influence in favour of the executive

because it shifts control over agenda setting, alters decision-making procedures, andcreates informational asymmetries and new justifications for domestic policies.

National executives are increasingly able to 'cut slack' and loosen the constraints

imposed by legislatures, interest groups and other domestic actors (Moravcsik, 1994).By pointing to the manifestation of Europeanisation in changing opportunitystructures, where calculating actors strategically adapt to new circumstances, theintergovernmentalist theory of integration clearly connects to the rational strain of newinstitutionalism.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

The foregoing discussion of the major questions related to the new research agenda ofEuropeanisation signifies the need for (1) conceptual clarification, (2) explicit

theorising and empirical testing, and what might be called (3) 'scientific unity'. First,when defining what Europeanisation is we should clarify the difference with other


9/13

contiguous terms, if at least it is to become more than just a 'fashionable term' (Olsen,2002). Boiled down to its distinguishing features, I contend that Europeanisation isalways (to a certain extent) a process of domestic political change caused (somehow)

by processes of European integration. This very minimalist definition forces us tofocus perhaps primarily on the national level, but by no means exclusively because

finding out to what extent, and how, national politics is affected by Europeandevelopments logically implies a focus on the relationship between the two levels.

Second, in order to develop our research agenda beyond the scope of merely technicalimplementation studies it is of crucial importance to be as explicit as possible instating why we do or do not expect domestic change in certain areas. Hence we shouldalways first answer the question why Europe can be expected to be involved indomestic matters at all, for example by looking at its relation to market-making ormarket-correcting policies. I have argued that the new institutionalist theories are

particularly suitable for accounting for domestic change, and that contrastinghypotheses should be developed from the sociological and rational strains ofinstitutionalism. Such propositions should then be tested as rigorously as possible,where the extent of change in the identities and strategies of domestic actors is crucialin deciding between what might be called thick and thin Europeanisation.

Finally, and notwithstanding the specific 'domestic politics' perspective of theEuropeanisation research agenda, we must not lose sight of the larger question that has

been at the basis of classic integration theories: the transformation of the nation-state.At first glance, it appears that there is ample room to make a connection between thickEuropeanisation and supranational theories, on the one hand, and thin Europeanisationand intergovernmental theories, on the other. This would arguably allow for more

'scientific unity' between scholars of Europeanisation who, at the moment, seem to bedispersed along a continuum between a more European-focused international relationsand a more nationally-focused comparative politics. It could also shed some new lighton old questions related to the vitality of national politics.

references

Brzel, T. (1999), 'Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation toEuropeanisation in German and Spain', Journal of Common Market Studies, 37:4,573-596.

Brzel, T. (2002), 'Pace-Setting, Foot-Dragging, and Fence-Sitting: Member StateResponses to Europeanization', Journal of Common Market Studies, 40:2, 193-214.

Brzel, T. and T. Risse (2003), 'Conceptualising the Domestic Impact of Europe' in K.Featherstone and C. M. Radaelli (eds), The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford,Oxford University Press.

Bulmer, S. (1998), 'New Institutionalism and the Governance of the Single European

Market', Journal of European Public Policy, 5:3, 365-386.


10/13

Caporaso, J.A. (1999), 'Towards a Normal Science of Regional Integration,' Journal ofEuropean Public Policy, 6:1, 160-164.

Checkel, J.T. (1998), 'The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory,World Politics, 50: 2, 324-348.

Checkel, J.T. (2001), 'The Europeanization of Citizenship?' in M. Green Cowles, J.Caporaso and T. Risse, (eds), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and DomesticChange, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Commission of the European Communities (2001), 'Communication on an openmethod of co-ordination for the community immigration policy.' COM (2001), 387final.

De Rooij, R. (2002), 'The Impact of the European Union on Local Government in theNetherlands', Journal of European Public Policy, 9:3, 447-467.

Falkner, G. (2001), 'The Europeanisation of Austria: Misfit, Adaptation andControversies', European Integration Online Papers, 5:13,http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2001-013a.htm.

Featherstone, K. and C.M. Radaelli, (eds), (2003), The Politics of Europeanization,Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Freeman, G.P. and N. gelman (1998), 'Homeland Citizenship Policies and the Statusof Third Country Nationals in the European Union', Journal of Ethnic and Migration

Studies, 24:4, 769-788.

Gourevitch, P. (1978), 'The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources ofDomestic Politics', International Organisation, 32:4, 881-911.

Grabbe, H. (2001), 'How Does Europeanisation Affect CEE Governance?Conditionality, Diffusion and Diversity', Journal of European Public Policy, 8:6, 1013-1031.

Green Cowles, M., J. Caporaso and T. Risse, (eds) (2001), Transforming Europe:Europeanization and Domestic Change, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Guiraudon, V. (2000), 'European Integration and Migration Policy: Vertical Policy-making as Venue Shopping', Journal of Common Market Studies, 38:2, 251-271.

Haas, E. (1958), The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces, 1950-1957, Stanford, Stanford University Press.

Hall, P. and R. Taylor (1996), 'Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms',Political Science, 44:5, 936-957.

Hanf, K. and B. Soetendorp (eds), (1998), Adapting to European Integration: Small

States and the European Union, London and New York, Longman.
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2001-013a.htmhttp://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2001-013a.htm


11/13

Harmsen, R. (1999), The Europeanization of National Administrations: AComparative Study of France and the Netherlands, Governance, 12:1, 81-113.

Hay, C. and D. Wincott (1998), 'Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism',Political Studies, 46:5, 951-957.

Hritier, A., D. Kerwer, C. Knill, D. Lehmkuhl, M. Teutsch and A-C. Douillet (2001),Differential Europe. The European Union Impact on National Policymaking, Boulder,Rowman and Littlefield.

Hix, S. (1994), 'The Study of the European Community: The Challenge toComparative Politics', West European Politics, 17:1, 1-30.

Hix, S. and K. Goetz (2000), 'Introduction: European Integration and NationalPolitical Systems', West European Politics, 23:4, 1-26.

Hooghe, L. and G. Marks (2001), Multi-level Governance and European Integration,Boulder, Rowman and Littlefield.

Kahler, M. (2002), 'The State of the State in World Politics' in I. Katznelson and H.Milner, (eds), Political Science: State of the Discipline, New York and London, W.W.

Norton.

Kassim, H., B.G. Peters and V. Wright, (eds), (2000), The National Co-ordination ofEU Policy: The Domestic Level, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Knill, C. and D. Lehmkuhl (2002), 'The National Impact of European UnionRegulatory Policy: Three Europeanisation Mechanisms', European Journal of PoliticalResearch, 41:2, 255-280.

Ladrech, R. (2002), 'Europeanisation and Political Parties: Towards a Framework forAnalysis', Party Politics, 8:4, 389-403.

Ladrech, R. (1994), 'Europeanisation of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Caseof France', Journal of Common Market Studies, 32:1, 69-88.

Lavenex, S. (2001), 'The Europeanisation of Refugee Policies: Normative Challenges

and Institutional Legacies,' Journal of Common Market Studies, 39:5, 851-974.

Mair, P. (2000), 'The Limited Impact of Europe on National Party Systems', WestEuropean Politics, 23:4, 27-51.

March, J. and J. Olsen (1998), 'The Institutional Dynamics of International PoliticalOrders.' International Organisation, 52:4, 943-969.

March, J. and J. Olsen (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organization Basis ofPolitics, New York, The Free Press.

Milward, A. S. (1994), The European Rescue of the Nation-State, London, Routledge.


12/13

Moravcsik, A. (1993), 'Preferences and Power in the European Community: A LiberalIntergovernmentalist Approach', Journal of Common Market Studies, 31:4, 473-524.

Moravcsik, A. (1994), 'Why the European Community Strengthens the State:Domestic Politics and International Cooperation', Center for European Studies

Working Paper Series, Harvard University, No. 52.

Moravcsik, A. (1998), The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power fromMessina to Maastricht, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press.

Olsen, J. (2002), 'The Many Faces of Europeanization', Journal of Common MarketStudies, 40:5, 921-952.

Pierson, P. (1996), 'The Path to European Integration: A Historical InstitutionalistAnalysis', Comparative Political Studies, 29:2, 123-163.

Putnam, R. (1988), 'Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-level Games',International Organisation, 42:3, 427-460.

Radaelli, C. (2003), 'The Europeanization of Public Policy' in K. Featherstone andC.M. Radaelli, (eds), The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress.

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1994), 'The Hollowing Out of the State', Political Quarterly, 65, 138-151.

Risse, T., M. Green Cowles and J. Caporaso (2001), 'Europeanisation and DomesticChange: Introduction' in M. Green Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse (eds),Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, Ithaca, CornellUniversity Press.

Sbragia, A. (2001), Italy Pays for Europe: Political Leadership, Political Choice, andInstitutional Adaptation, in M. Green Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse (eds),Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, Ithaca, CornellUniversity Press.

Scharpf, F. (1999), Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic, Oxford, Oxford

University Press.

Soysal, Y.N. (1994), Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership inEurope, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Stone Sweet, A. and W. Sandholtz (1997), 'European Integration and SupranationalGovernance', Journal of European Public Policy, 4:3, 297-317.

Stone Sweet, A., N. Fligstein and W. Sandholtz (2001), 'The Institutionalization ofEuropean Space' in A. Stone Sweet, W. Sandholtz and N. Fligstein (eds), TheInstitutionalization of Europe, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Vink, M. (2001), 'The Limited Europeanisation of Domestic Citizenship Policy:


13/13

Documents

Vink 2003 What is Europeanisation