The Socio-economic Arena and Deepening Democracy: Economic Transformation, Civil Society and Ethnic Minorities in Candidate Countries

  • Geoffrey Pridham


The deeper effects of European integration are often assumed to be either very limited or not very perceptible or, at best, long term and therefore more discernible after a certain period as a member state. This owes something to the perception of the EU institutions as distant from society (meaning, essentially different national societies); but it is important to distinguish between such perceptions and the real effects of integration. This chapter is concerned with the socio-economic impacts of EU accession and how these have affected democratisation in post-Communist states as well as how perceptions of the EU might also have influenced political attitudes in that process.


Foreign Direct Investment Civil Society Economic Transformation Candidate Country North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Szczerbiak, ‘Polish public opinion: explaining declining support for EU membership’, in Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 39, no. 1, March 2001, pp. 115–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Euro Info Centre, Opinions of Czech SMEs of the Situation concerning the Czech Republic joining the European Union, Prague, 7 September 1999, p. 24.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Cf. A. Smith, The Return to Europe: the Reintegration of Eastern Europe into the European Economy (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000), pp. 179ff.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    P. Machonin, Results of a Czech-Slovak Comparison: Actors of Social Transformation and Modernisation, Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Working Paper 98:2, 1998, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    UNDP Romania, A Decade Later: Understanding the Transition Process in Romania -National Human Development Report Romania 2001–2, Bucharest, 2002, p. 31.Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    Interview with Petr Greger, Director of the Euro-Czech Forum, in Prague, February 2003; Euro-Czech Forum, Agenda 2003 (Prague: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, January 2003), p. 5.Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    European Economic and Social Commitee, Bulgaria on the Road to Accession, Brussels: CES 931/2001, 11 July 2001, p. 4.Google Scholar
  8. 14.
    See 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
  9. 16.
    D. Fink-Hafner, ‘The Europeanising role of interest organisations in the Slovenian parliamentary policy-making’, in Z. Mansfeldova and M. Klima (eds), The Role of the Central European Parliaments in the Process of European Integration (Prague: Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic, 1998), p. 245.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    See, for example, H. Tang (ed.), Winners and Losers of EU Integration: Policy Issues for Central and Eastern Europe (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2000), based on contributions to a conference of network institutes.Google Scholar
  11. 20.
    B. Newton and L. Walsh, ‘The Czech Republic: the economic road to transformation’, in M. Mannin (ed.), Pushing Back the Boundaries: the European Union and Central and Eastern Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), p. 232.Google Scholar
  12. 21.
    Hughes, Grabbe and Smith, Attitudes of the Central and East European Countries to Integration, p. 86; A. Bulai and V. Mihailescu, ‘The peasantry — player and problem: local development strategies and communication strategies from the European integration perspective’, in Map of Players and Issues of the Accession to the European Union; Bucharest Open Society Foundation, 2003, pp. 81–2.Google Scholar
  13. 27.
    G. Pridham, The Dynamics of Democratization: a Comparative Approach (London: Continuum, 2000), pp. 239–40.Google Scholar
  14. 28.
    L. Katseli, ‘The internationalisation of Southern European economies’, in H. Gibson (ed.), Economic Transformation, Democratization and Integration into the European Union: Southern Europe in Comparative Perspective (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), pp. 104–6.Google Scholar
  15. 29.
    See K. Quigley, For Democracy’s Sake: Foundations and Democracy Assistance in Central Europe (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1997), pp. 27, 42 and 56.Google Scholar
  16. 30.
    S. Mendelson and J. Glenn, Democracy Assistance and NGO Strategies in Post-Communist Societies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, Working Paper No. 8, February 2000, executive summary, p. iii.Google Scholar
  17. 32.
    See M.M. Howard, The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 155 and chapter 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 33.
    For example, A. Craiutu, ‘Light at the end of the tunnel: Romania, 1989–1998’, in G. Pridham and T. Gallagher (eds), Experimenting with Democracy: Regime Change in the Balkans (London: Routledge, 2000), p. 171.Google Scholar
  19. 37.
    K. Hamann, ‘European integration and civil society in Spain’, in South European Society and Politics, vol. 8, nos. 1–2, summer-autumn 2003, p. 62.Google Scholar
  20. 38.
    T. Carothers, ‘Western civil-society aid to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union’, in East European Constitutional Review, vol. 8, no. 4, Fall 1999, p. 61.Google Scholar
  21. 40.
    ISA Consult, European Institute (Sussex University) and GJW Europe, Final Report: Evaluation of the Phare and Tacis Democracy Programme, 1992–1997 (Brighton and Hamburg, November 1997), p. 77.Google Scholar
  22. 42.
    European Commission, DG External Economic Relations, The European Union’s Phare and Tacis Democracy Programme: Projects in Operation 1996 (Brussels, 1996), pp. 121–4.Google Scholar
  23. 45.
    D. Reichardt, ‘Democracy promotion in Slovakia an import or export business?’, in Perspectives: The Central European Review of International Affairs, summer 2002, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  24. 49.
    Interview with Pavol Demeš, German Marshall Fund of the US, in Bratislava, April 2002; also, interview with Balázs Jarábik, Freedom House, in Bratislava, September 2002. Several Slovak NGOs, based mainly in Bratislava, focussed specially on EU affairs. For a full list of Slovak NGOs involved in one way or another in EU affairs, see Slovak Policy Foreign Association (SFPA), Slovenské Európske Forum Mimovládnych Organizácií (Bratislava, 2002).Google Scholar
  25. 66.
    This is a view invariably held by NGO leaders themselves, for example, P. Demeš and K. Kostalova, ‘Slowakische Nichtregierungsorganisationen und ihre Zusammenarbeit mit deutschen Partnern’, in M. Wenig (ed.), Die Bürgergesellschaft als ein Motor der Europaischen Integration, Zentrum für Europaische Integrationsforschung, Discussion Paper C71 2000 (Bonn, 2000), p. 46.Google Scholar
  26. 67.
    A. Francis, ‘Environmental issues in CEEC transformation: environment as a challenge to enlargement’, in M. Mannin (ed.), Pushing Back the Boundaries: the European Union and Central and Eastern Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), p. 179.Google Scholar
  27. 68.
    T. Carothers, Assessing Democracy Assistance: the Case of Romania (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment, 1996), p. 89.Google Scholar
  28. 70.
    R. Coward, ‘EU-funded road set to ruin Poland’s wildlife paradise’, in The Observer, 19 May 2002.Google Scholar
  29. 72.
    On the Czech Republic, see R. Fawn, The Czech Republic: a Nation of Velvet (Amsterdam: Harwood, 2000), pp. 116–17.Google Scholar
  30. 77.
    For an extensive assessment of the EU role over human rights, see P. Alston (ed.), The EU and Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford Universiy Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  31. 79.
    M. Kusy, ‘Human rights’, 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), p. 125.Google Scholar
  32. 80.
    M. Kusy, ‘Human rights’, in G. Meseznikov, M. Kollár and T. Nicholson (eds), Slovakia 2002: a Global Report on the State of Society (Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2003), pp. 143–4.Google Scholar
  33. 82.
    N. Muižnieks and I. Brands Kehris, ‘The European Union, democratisation and minorities in Latvia’, in P. Kubicek (ed.), The European Union and Democratization (London: Routledge, 2003), p. 51.Google Scholar
  34. 84.
    Open Society Institute, Monitoring the EU Accession Process: Minority Protection (2001), p. 19.Google Scholar
  35. 85.
    M. Casle-Kanerova and B. Jordan, Local Strategies for Civic Inclusion in a European Context: the Roma in the Czech Republic, ESRC One Europe or Several? Working Paper 34/01 (Falmer: Sussex University, 2001), p. 24.Google Scholar
  36. 86.
    Open Society Institute, Monitoring the EU Accession Process: Minority Protection (2001), pp. 25–6.Google Scholar
  37. 88.
    European Institute, Bulgaria’s Progress towards EU Membership in 2000 — the NGOs’ Perspective (Sofia, 2001), p. 55.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Geoffrey Pridham 2005

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations