Theoretical Perspectives on European Enlargement and Democratisation

  • Geoffrey Pridham

Abstract

It has for long been held that European integration facilitates, encourages and promotes democratic consolidation in countries engaging with it and undergoing regime change. This belief is widely held in EU institutions and among governments and parties of member states as well as among political and economic elites in states seeking admission to the EU. It is particularly evident in the political rhetoric of leaders on both sides. And, there is a historical pattern behind such a view.

Keywords

Europe Posit Arena Defend Iraq 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    L. Whitehead, The International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 19.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    P. Schmitter, ‘The international context of contemporary democratisation’, in G. Pridham (ed.), Transitions to Democracy: Comparative Perspectives from Southern Europe, Latin America and Eastern Europe (Dartmouth: Aldershot, 1995), p. 524.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    See G. Pridham, ‘Measuring international factors in democratisation’, in G. Mangott, H. Waldrauch and S. Day (eds), Democratic Consolidation — the International Dimension: Hungary, Poland and Spain (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2000), pp. 53–69; and his ‘Rethinking regime change theory and the international dimension of democratisation: ten years after in East-Central Europe’, in G. Pridham and A. Ágh (eds), Ten Years After: Democratic Transition and Consolidation in East-Central Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    A. Pravda, ‘Introduction’, in J. Zielonka and A. Pravda (eds), Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe, Volume 2: International and Transnational Factors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 15.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    J. Pinder, ‘The European Community and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe’, in G. Pridham et al, Building Democracy?: The International Dimension of Democratisation in Eastern Europe (London: Leicester University Press, revised edition, 1997), pp. 114ff.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    For example, G. O’Donnell, P. Schmitter and L. Whitehead (eds), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), part I, p. 5: ‘one of the firmest conclusions that emerged from our working group was that transitions from authoritarian rule and immediate prospects for political democracy were largely to be explained in terms of national forces and calculations; external actors tended to play an indirect and usually marginal role, with the obvious exception of those instances in which a foreign occupying power was present’.Google Scholar
  7. J. Linz and A. Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), underplay international influences by dint of neglecting them in their otherwise comprehensive comparative work.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    Some historians have for instance written extensively about the postwar democratisations in Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany. On Italy, for instance, both J.E. Miller, The United States and Italy 1940–1950: the Politics and Diplomacy of Stabilisation (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  9. J.L. Harper, America and the Reconstruction of Italy, 1945–1948 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) provide rich detail on the USA’s role in influencing domestic developments in that country although democratisation, as such, is not the dominant theme.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 11.
    On this point, see G. Pridham, The Dynamics of Democratization: A Comparative Approach (London: Continuum, 2000), chapter 1.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    A. Przeworski, Sustainable Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 14.
    The most prominent exponent of this school is Huntington, for example, see S. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratisation in the late 20th Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    See L. Whitehead (ed.), The International Dimensions of Democratisation, own chapter 1 on three international dimensions of democratisation; also, P. Schmitter, ‘The international context of contemporary democratisation’, in G. Pridham (ed.), Transitions to Democracy (1995), pp. 503ff.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    For a discussion of pariah regimes and the question of European influences, see G. Pridham, ‘Uneasy democratisations — pariah regimes, political conditionality and reborn transitions in Central and Eastern Europe’, in Democratization, vol. 8, no. 4, winter 2001, pp. 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 19.
    See, for example, K. Remmer, ‘Theoretical decay and theoretical development: the resurgence of institutional analysis’, in World Politics, vol. 50, October 1997, p. 53, where she argues that ‘just as economists have found open-economy models useful for addressing contemporary issues of stabilisation and adjustment, comparativists need to begin thinking more systematically in terms of “open-polity” models’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. One instance of this is D. Rueschemeyer, E. Stephens and J. Stephens, Capitalist Development and Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), which incorporates transnational forces alongside other variables including social class to explain the positive correlation between economic development and democracy.Google Scholar
  17. 21.
    For a brief explanation of these theories, see D. Chryssochoou, M. Tsinisizelis, S. Stavridis and K. Ifantis, Theory and Reform in the European Union (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), chapter 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 23.
    F. Schimmelfennig, ‘The Community trap: liberal norms, rhetorical action and the Eastern enlargement of the European Union’, in International Organization, winter 2001, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 24.
    For example, A. Dimitrova, ‘Enlargement, institution-building and the EU’s administrative capacity requirement’, in West European Politics, October 2002, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 171–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 25.
    S. Hix, The Political System of the European Union (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999), pp. 2–5.Google Scholar
  21. 26.
    G. Marks, L. Hooghe and K. Blank, ‘European integration from the 1980s: state-centric vs. multi-level governance’, in Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 34, no. 3, September 1996, p. 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 27.
    G. Marks, L. Hooghe and K. Blank, ‘European integration from the 1980s: state-centric vs. multi-level governance’, in Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 34, no. 3, September 1996, pp. 346–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 28.
    See B. Kohler-Koch (ed.), Linking EU and National Governance (Oxford: Oxford Universiy Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  24. 30.
    See T. Christiansen and S. Piattoni (eds), Informal Governance in the European Union (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004).Google Scholar
  25. 32.
    T. Risse-Kappen, ‘Bringing transnational relations back in: introduction’, in T. Risse-Kappen (ed.), Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-state Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 34.
    R. Keohane and J. Nye (eds), Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), their introduction, pp. xvi-xxii.Google Scholar
  27. 35.
    D. Sidjanski, ‘Transition to democracy and European integration: the role of interest groups in Southern Europe’, in G. Pridham (ed.), Encouraging Democracy: the International Context of Regime Transition in Southern Europe (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1991), pp. 195–211.Google Scholar
  28. 36.
    M. Slater, ‘Political elites, popular indifference and Community building’, in B. Nelsen and A. Stubb (eds), The European Union: Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994), pp. 153–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 39.
    See M. Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse (eds), Transforming Europe: Europeanisation and Domestic Change (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  30. 40.
    K. Goetz and S. Hix (eds), Europeanised Politics?: European Integration and National Political Systems, special issue of West European Politics, vol. 23, no. 4, October 2000 (London: Frank Cass), especially their introduction.Google Scholar
  31. 41.
    M. Vink, ‘What is Europeanisation? and other questions on a new research agenda’, in European Political Science, vol. 3, no. 1, autumn 2003, pp. 63–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 42.
    This point about the abrupt effects of integration on national political systems is made for new member states, and applied to the Austrian case, by G. Falkner, ‘How pervasive are Euro-politics?: effects of EU membership on a new member state’, in Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 38, no. 2, June 2000, pp. 223–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 43.
    This neglect of domestic politics is not so unusual when compared with the literature on previous enlargements. Studies of the domestic politics of accession are few and include, for instance, F. Roy Willis, France, Germany and the New Europe, 1945–1967 (London: Oxford University Press, 1968).Google Scholar
  34. F. Roy Willis, Italy chooses Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971).Google Scholar
  35. U. Kitzinger, Diplomacy and Persuasion: How Britain joined the Common Market (London: Thames & Hudson, 1973).Google Scholar
  36. L. Tsoukalis, The European Community and its Mediterranean Enlargement (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981), chapter 2.Google Scholar
  37. However, some attention is given to domestic politics in the current accession process involving CEE in H. Grabbe and K. Hughes, Enlarging the EU Eastwards (Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 1998), chapter 6.Google Scholar
  38. M. Mannin (ed.), Pushing Back the Boundaries: the European Union and Central and Eastern Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  39. K. Henderson (ed.), Back to Europe: Cental and Eastern Europe and the European Union (London: UCL Press, 1999), part III chapters.Google Scholar
  40. See also K. Cordell (ed.), Poland and the European Union (London: Routledge, 2000).Google Scholar
  41. 47.
    Cf. discussion of these two categories in M. Kaldor and I. Vejvoda, ‘Democratisation in Eastern and Central European countries’, in International Affairs, vol. 73, no. 1, January 1997, esp. pp. 62–7. For instance, the so-called Copenhagen criteria, established at the European Council meeting in 1993, included human rights and respect for minorities as well as the rule of law and stable democratic institutions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Geoffrey Pridham 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey Pridham
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BristolUK

Personalised recommendations