Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Post-Communist Accession Governments: Policy Orientation, Institutional Adjustment and Implementing Democratic Conditionality

  • Chapter
Designing Democracy

  • 72 Accesses

Abstract

It is sometimes maintained that distinguishing between Europeanisation and democratisation is really impossible.1 But that overstates the problem if one accepts that: (a) the two processes are autonomous and originally separate for post-Communist democratisation commenced in 1989-90 before integration impinged seriously over accession; and (b) a distinction is possible between direct democratising effects which are more easily distinguishable (notably through implementing the EU’s political conditions) and indirect ones which may be more difficult to isolate. The latter may, for example, arise from participating in EU institutional mechanisms such as the joint parliamentary committees (JPCs) and from the involvement of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) ministerial personnel in the EU’s decision-making processes, whether through their presence at European Council summits or most of all their immersion in membership negotiations. Indirect effects are, of course, more likely to occur once Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) are member states.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. For example, B. Lippert, G. Umbach and W. Wessels, ‘Europeanisation of CEE executives: EU membership negotiations as a shaping power’, in Journal of European Public Policy, special issue 2001, p. 985. ‘The context of transformation makes it difficult, however, to distinguish unambiguously between those processes that are caused by, and connected to, EU integration and those associated with democratisation and marketisation.’

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Ágh, Anticipatory and Adaptive Europeanization in Hungary (Budapest: Hungarian Centre for Democracy Studies, 2003), p. 92.

    Google Scholar 

  3. According to Crowther, ideological affinities between Iliescu and Gorbachev played a part here, but so did a dependence on Russian raw materials and initial diplomatic difficulties with the West, see W. Crowther, ‘The European Union and Romania: the politics of constrained transition’, in P. Kubicek (ed.), The European Union and Democratization (London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 93–4.

    Google Scholar 

  4. I. Brinar and M. Svetlicić, ‘Enlargement of the European Union: the case of Slovenia’, in Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 5, December 1999, p. 810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. M. B. Williams, ‘Exporting the democratic deficit: Hungary’s experience with EU integration’, in Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 48, no. 1, January-February 2001, p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  6. H. Grabbe and K. Hughes, Enlarging the EU Eastwards (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1998), p. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  7. The EP report said that it ‘considers that smooth development of the negotiations will depend upon Romania’s capacity to bring her child welfare fully inside the UN Convention for the Rights of the Child, since this forms part of the acquis communautaire of Justice and Home Affairs which chapter’s opening is planned for autumn 2001’ (European Parliament, Draft Report on Romania’s membership application to the EU, 23 May 2001, p. 7).

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Marušiak, J. Alner, P. Lukac, R. Chmel, I. Samson and A. Duleba ‘The foreign policy and national security of the Slovak Republic’, in G. Mesežnikov, M. Ivantysyn and T. Nicholson (eds), Slovakia, 1998–1999: a Global Report on the State of Society (Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 1999), pp. 178–9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Marušiak, A. Duleba, Z. Melisova-Bates and P. Lukáč, ‘Foreign policy: main trends, bilateral relations, Visegrad cooperation’, in G. Mesežnikov, M. Kollár and T. Nicholson (eds), Slovakia 2001: a Global Report on the State of Society (Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2002), pp. 231–2.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Huntington, ‘Political development and political decay’, World Politics, vol. 18, April 1965, p. 394.

    Google Scholar 

  11. It has, however, been given emphasis as one of the five arenas of democratic consolidation as the embodiment of rational-legal authority, see J. Linz and A. Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), chapters 1 and 2.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. March and J. Olsen, ‘The new institutionalism: organisational factors in political life’, in American Political Science Review, September 1984, vol. 27, p. 738.

    Google Scholar 

  13. G. Pridham, The Dynamics of Democratization: a Comparative Approach (London: Continuum, 2000), chapter 4.1.

    Google Scholar 

  14. On structural convergence, see M. Green Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse, Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), pp. 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  15. European Commission, Enlargement Composite Paper 99 (Brussels, 1999), p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  16. K. Goetz and H. Wollmann, ‘Governmentalizing central executives in post-Communist Europe: a four-country comparison’, in Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 8, no. 6, 2001, special issue on Executive Governance in Central and Eastern Europe, p. 878.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See M. Brusis and J. Emmanouilidis, Negotiating EU Accession: Policy Approaches of Advanced Candidate Countries from Central and Eastern Europe, Munich: Centre for Applied Policy Research (CAP), July 2000, pp. 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Wlachovsky, A. Duleba, P. Lukac and T. Skladony, ‘The foreign policy of the Slovak Republic’, in M. Bútora and T. Skladony (eds), Slovakia 1996–97: a Global Report on the State of Society (Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 1998), pp. 82–83.

    Google Scholar 

  19. European Commission, Enlargement 98: Composite Paper on the Commission Reports (Brussels, 1998), p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  20. European Commission, Enlargement: Strategy Paper 2002 (Brussels, 2002), pp. 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Jablonski, ‘The Europeanisation of government in Poland in the 1990s’, in K. Cordeil (ed.), Poland and the European Union (London: Routledge, 2000), p. 136.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Ágh, Anticipatory and Adaptive Europeanization in Hungary (Budapest: Hungarian Centre for Democracy Studies, 2003), p. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J.-H. Meyer-Sahling, ‘Civil service reform in post-Communist Europe: the bumpy road to depoliticisation’, in West European Politics, vol. 27, no. 1, January 2004, pp. 71–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. V. Nižňanský and M. Kňažko, ‘Public administration’, in G. Mesežnikov, M. Kollár and T. Nicholson (eds), Slovakia 2000: A Global Report on the State of Society (Bratislava, Institute for Public Affairs, 2001), pp. 104–6. An official of the PHARE Programme responsible for the modernisation of public administration, in Bratislava since 1997, commented with some frustration on the difficulty of changing the Slovak bureaucracy because there was ‘the same mentality as before 1989’ (interview with Hans de Facq, PHARE Programme, in Bratislava, May 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  25. European Parliament, Draft Report on Romania’s membership application to the European Union, 23 May 2001, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  26. A. Dimitrova, ‘Enlargement, institution-building and the EU’s administrative capacity requirement’, in West European Politics, vol. 25, no. 4, October 2002, p. 183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. D. Bailey and L. de Propris, ‘A bridge too Phare? EU pre-accession aid and capacity-building in the candidate countries’, in Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 42, no. 1, March 2004, pp. 86–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. A. Ágh, Anticipatory and Adaptive Europeanization in Hungary, pp. 118, 120; Jablonski, in K. Cordeil (ed.), Poland and the European Union, pp. 139–42. On the interaction of this EU-induced reform with domestic politics, see M. Ferry, ‘The EU and regional reform in Poland’, in Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 55/7, November 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  29. D. Marek and M. Baun, ‘The EU as a regional actor: the case of the Czech Republic’, in Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 40, no. 5, December 2002, pp. 895–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. UNDP, Latvia: Human Development Report, 2000–2001, pp. 34, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Z. Kalaydjieva, ‘An independent judicial system in the context of EU accession’, in European Institute, Sofia, Bulgaria’s Progress towards EU Membership in 2000 -the NGOs’Perspective (Sofia, 2001), p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  32. T. Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad: the Learning Curve (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999), pp. 165, 173–4.

    Google Scholar 

  33. European Commission, 2002 Regular Report on Latvia’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 2002), p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  34. European Commission, 2002 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 2002), p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Interview with Václav Žák, editor of Listy: Journal for Politics and Culture, in Prague, March 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  36. European Commission, 2001 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress Towards Accession (Brussels, 2001), p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  37. European Commission, 2002 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress Towards Accession (Brussels, 2002), p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  38. M. Vasečka, ‘Roma’, in G. Mesežnikov, M. Kollár and T. Nicholson (eds), Slovakia 2002: A Global Report on the State of Society (Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2003), pp. 180–1.

    Google Scholar 

  39. European Commission, Composite Paper: Reports on Progress Towards Accession by Each of the Candidate Countries (Brussels, 1999), p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  40. European Commission, 2002 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 2002), pp. 35–7.

    Google Scholar 

  41. European Commission, 1999 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 1999), p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  42. European Parliament, Draft Report on Romania’s Membership Application to the European Union, 23 May 2001, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  43. European Commission, 2001 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress Towards Accession (Brussels, 2001), p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bristol, UK

    Geoffrey Pridham (Professor of European Politics)

Authors
  1. Geoffrey Pridham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2005 Geoffrey Pridham

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pridham, G. (2005). Post-Communist Accession Governments: Policy Orientation, Institutional Adjustment and Implementing Democratic Conditionality. In: Designing Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504905_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation