Abstract
The relations between Turkey and the European Union and the future of Turkey’s EU vocation have attracted considerable public interest in both the EU countries and Turkey. The European identity of Turkey, the economic, social, and political consequences, as well as the practicality of Turkey’s potential membership in the European Union, have been discussed at length. Based on Turkey’s history and religion, some argued that Turkey is not a member of the “European family” for geographical and cultural reasons and, therefore, not eligible for EU membership.1 Driven by Turkey’s relative large size and economic underdevelopment, it was also argued that Turkey’s membership would disrupt EU economic and population balances. Others stressed that the European Union is based on values and a culture of which Turkey is not a part. According to this opinion, EU-Turkey relations could at best reach the level of institutionalized close political and economic cooperation, a “privileged partnership.” Hence, Turkey could never become a full member of the European Union. On the other hand, it was also argued that tolerance and multiculturalism are the key properties of the emerging European identity and that Turkey’s EU candidacy comprised an excellent opportunity for the European Union to show its inclusive character.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The relative ease with which Eastern European states were accepted as members of the “European family” in the process of the EU Eastern enlargement in the 1990s made a striking contrast with European circumspection in the case of Turkey. See Helene Sjursen, “Why Expand? The Question of Legitimacy and Justification in the EU’s Enlargement Policy,” Journal of Common Market Studies 40, no. 3 (2002): 503–7.
The Crimean War involved Great Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire, which formed a military alliance that successfully checked the rise of Russian naval power in the Black Sea. The “Concert of Europe” was a term with little real political content. However, what was important for the Ottoman Empire was that for the first time it was accepted as a “European power.” See William Hale, Turkish Foreign Policy 1774–2000 (London: Frank Cass, 2002), 26–27.
Iver B. Neumann and Jennifer M. Welsh, “The Other in European Self-Definition: A Critical Addendum to the Literature on International Society,” Review of International Studies 17, no. 4 (1991): 330–31.
Thomas Risse, Maria Green Cowles, and James Caporaso, “Europeanization and Domestic Change: Introduction” in Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, ed. Maria Green Cowles, James Caporaso, and Thomas Risse (Ithaca NY & London: Cornell University Press, 2001), 3.
Diez, Agnantopoulos, and Kaliber identified four different types of Europeanization, policy-related, political, societal and discursive. See Thomas Diez, Apostolos Agnantopoulos and Alper Kaliber, “Turkey, Europeanization and Civil Society: Introduction,” South European Society & Politics 10, no. 1 (2005): 3–7.
George Tsebelis, “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism,” British Journal of Political Science 25, no. 3 (1996): 289–325
Jeffrey T. Checkel, “The Europeanization of Citizenship?” in Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, ed. Maria Green Cowles, James Caporaso, and Thomas Risse (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), 182.
Ernst B. Haas, The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950–1957 (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 1958),
Ernst B. Haas, “Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration,” International Organization 30, no. 2 (1976): 475–76.
The case of the French President Charles de Gaulle and its impact on EEC policies in the 1960s is a clear example. See Ernst B. Haas, “The Uniting of Europe and the Uniting of Latin America,” Journal of Common Market Studies 5, no. 4(1967): 325–27.
Andrew Moravcsik, “Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach,” Journal of Common Market Studies 31, no. 4 (1993): 474–76.
Meltem Muftuler-Bac and Lauren M. McLaren, “Enlargement Preferences and Policy-Making in the European Union: Impacts on Turkey,” Journal of European Integration 25, no. 1 (2003): 19–20.
Andrew Moravcsik and Kalypso Nicolaidis, “Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions,” Journal of Common Market Studies 37, no. 1 (1999): 61–62.
Andrew Moravcsik, The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Rome to Maastricht (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), 3–4.
Frank Schimmelfennig, “The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union,” International Organization 55, no. 1 (2001): 27–28.
Thomas Risse, Daniela Engelmann-Martin, Hans-Joachim Knopf, and Klaus Roscher, “To Euro or Not to Euro? The EMU and Identity Politics in the European Union,” European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 2 (1999): 175–78.
Peter A. Hall and Rosemary C. R. Taylor, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms,” Political Studies 44, no. 4 (1996): 938.
For a concise account of historical institutionalism, see Kathleen Ann Thelen and Sven Steinmo, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Perspective” in Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, ed. Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Ann Thelen and Frank Longstreth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
Mark A. Pollack, “The New Institutionalisms and European Integration,” in European Integration Theory, ed. Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 139.
Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 182–85.
Paul Pierson, “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics,” American Political Science Review 94, no. 2 (2000): 252.
Margaret Levi, “A Model, a Method, and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis,” in Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure, ed. Mark I. Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 28.
Douglass C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 100, 40, cited in Putnam, Making Democracy Work, 181.
Wayne Sandholz, “Membership Matters: Limits of the Functional Approach to European Institutions,” Journal of Common Market Studies 34, no. 3 (1996): 426–27.
Colin Hay and Daniel Wincott, “Structure Agency and Historical Institutionalism,” Political Studies 46, no. 5 (1998): 951–55.
Paul Pierson, “The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis,” Comparative Political Studies 29, no. 2 (1996): 132–35.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America and Two Essays on America, trans. Gerald E. Bevan (London: Penguin, 2003).
Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963).
Lucian W. Pye, “Political Culture,” in The Encyclopaedia of Democracy, ed. S. Lipset (London & New York: Routledge, 1995), 965.
Rod Hague and Martin Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 78.
Dennis Kavanagh, Political Culture (London: Macmillan, 1972), 10–11.
Ronald Inglehart, Culture Shift (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), 19.
Roger Eatwell, “Introduction: The Importance of the Political Culture Approach,” in European Political Cultures: Conflict or Convergence? ed. Roger Eatwell (London: Routledge, 1997), 3.
Gabriel A. Almond, “Foreword: The Return to Political Culture,” in Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries, ed. Larry Diamond (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993), x.
Lucian W. Pye and Mary W. Pye, Asian Power and Politics: The Cultural Dimensions of Authority (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 20.
Larry Diamond, “Introduction: Political Culture and Democracy,” in Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries, ed. Larry Diamond (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993), 10–11.
Ronald Inglehart, “The Renaissance of Political Culture,” American Political Science Review 82 (1988): 1228–29.
Sidney Verba, “On Revisiting the Civic Culture: A Personal Postscript” in The Civic Culture Revisited, ed. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1980), 394–96.
Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Touchstone, 2000), 283–84.
The publication of Samuel Huntington’s controversial thesis on “the clash of civilizations” sparked fierce debate on culturalist theories. See Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72, no. 3 (1993); Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (London: Touchstone, 1998).
Gabriel A. Almond, “The Intellectual History of the Civic Culture Concept,” in The Civic Culture Revisited, ed. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1980), 31–32.
Copyright information
© 2009 Ioannis N. Grigoriadis
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grigoriadis, I.N. (2009). Introduction: Methodological Considerations. In: Trials of Europeanization. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230618053_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230618053_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-37684-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-61805-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)