Europeanization beyond Europe

Schimmelfennig, Frank

doi:10.12942/lreg-2009-3

Cited by 50 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What this means for the ability of the EU to influence domestic politics in these countries is a key question for studies of 'Europeanisation beyond the EU' Schimmelfennig 2009). …”

Section: Europeanisation Without a Credible Eu Membership Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Europeanisation in new member and candidate states

Sedelmeier¹

2011

Living Rev. Euro. Gov.

149

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Europeanisation of candidate countries and new members is a rather recent research area that has grown strongly since the early 2000s. Research in this area has developed primarily in the context of the EU's eastern enlargement. A small number of theoretically informed book-length studies of the EU's influence on the Central and Eastern European candidate countries have provided a generalisable conceptual framework for this research area, drawing on the debate between rationalist institutionalist and constructivist institutionalist approaches in International Relations and Comparative Politics. This framework makes these studies highly compatible with analyses of the Europeanisation of member states, with which they also share one key empirical finding, namely that the impact of the EU on candidate countries is differential across countries and issue areas. At the same time, the theoretical implications of these findings appear more clear-cut than in the case of the Europeanisation of member states: rationalist institutionalism, with its focus on the external incentives underpinning EU conditionality and the material costs incurred by domestic veto players, appears well-suited to explaining variation in the patterns of Europeanisation in candidate countries. A very recent development within this research agenda is the focus on the Europeanisation of new member states. While the study of the EU's impact during the early years of membership was hitherto primarily a subfield of analyses of the Europeanisation of member states, it has now become an extension of studies of candidate countries by analysing the impact of accession on the dynamics of pre-accession Europeanisation and how durable and distinctive the patterns of candidate Europeanisation are in the post-accession stage.

show abstract

“…What this means for the ability of the EU to influence domestic politics in these countries is a key question for studies of 'Europeanisation beyond the EU' Schimmelfennig 2009). …”

Section: Europeanisation Without a Credible Eu Membership Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Europeanisation in new member and candidate states

Sedelmeier¹

2011

Living Rev. Euro. Gov.

149

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inconsistency and ineffectiveness is the general picture. 6 The marked slowdown of EU enlargement and the failure to implement conditionality consistently beyond the circle of candidate countries have therefore partly shifted the attention of academics and practitioners away from leverage as a model for EU democracy promotion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EU democracy promotion in the neighbourhood: from leverage to governance?

2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EU external democracy promotion has traditionally been based on 'linkage', i.e. bottom-up support for democratic forces in third countries, and 'leverage', i.e. the top-down inducement of political elites towards democratic reforms through political conditionality. The advent of the European Neighbourhood Policy and new forms of association have introduced a new, third model of democracy promotion which rests in functional cooperation between administrations. This article comparatively defines and explicates these three models of external democracy promotion. It argues that while 'linkage' has hitherto failed to produce tangible outcomes, and the success of 'leverage' has basically been tied to an EU membership perspective, the 'governance' model of democracy promotion bears greater potential beyond the circle of candidate countries. In contrast to the two traditional models, however, the governance approach does not tackle the core institutions of the political system as such, but promotes transparency, accountability, and participation at the level of state administration.

show abstract

“…The eu's lack of objective assessment of the rule of law was exposed during the pre-accession (Kochenov 2008) and the post-accession periods in Romania and Bulgaria (Dimitrov et al 2014;Toneva-Metodieva, 2014), in the application of eu conditionality towards European Neighbourhood Policy countries (Schimmelfennig 2012) and more recently during the so-called "rule of law crisis" in Romania from summer 2012, as demonstrated by this contribution. In Romania, the eu did not evaluate the rule of law in a systemic way (which would have included a holistic and temporal perspective), but applied instead an ad-hoc, inconsistent and partisan assessment of deliberate governmental actions vis-à-vis politicized horizontal accountability institutions (which had been previously empowered by the eu itself).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Now, a third generation of scholars has revealed several "pathologies of Europeanization" (Börzel and Pamuk 2012;Mendelski 2014) and the "eu's pathological power" (Mendelski 2015). This more critical strand of literature has argued that the eu undermines the rule of law (Pech 2015;Slapin 2015;Mendelski 2015), democracy (Börzel 2015) and good governance (Börzel and Pamuk 2012;Mungiu-Pippidi 2014), for instance by applying deficient and inconsistent methods to promote rule of law and democracy (see Schimmelfennig 2012;Börzel 2016;Börzel and van Hüllen 2014). It seems that by drawing attention to negative and pathological effects of eu conditionality, the Europeanization literature has become more pessimistic, or better said, more realistic about the eu's ability to promote democracy and the rule of law in accession countries from South Eastern Europe (see) and the European Neighborhood (see Schimmelfennig 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This more critical strand of literature has argued that the eu undermines the rule of law (Pech 2015;Slapin 2015;Mendelski 2015), democracy (Börzel 2015) and good governance (Börzel and Pamuk 2012;Mungiu-Pippidi 2014), for instance by applying deficient and inconsistent methods to promote rule of law and democracy (see Schimmelfennig 2012;Börzel 2016;Börzel and van Hüllen 2014). It seems that by drawing attention to negative and pathological effects of eu conditionality, the Europeanization literature has become more pessimistic, or better said, more realistic about the eu's ability to promote democracy and the rule of law in accession countries from South Eastern Europe (see) and the European Neighborhood (see Schimmelfennig 2012). This recent sobering evaluation of the eu's soft power and effectiveness of conditionality reflects the empirical deterioration of the rule of law and democratic quality in the region, as well as a "pathological turn" in Europeanization studies, which is the central focus of this article.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Europeanization and the Rule of Law: Towards a Pathological Turn

Mendelski

2016

Southeast Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent scholarship has exposed the "eu's pathological power", which has undermined the creation of the rule of law in South Eastern Europe (see) and beyond. This paper discusses the "pathological turn" in Europeanization studies by identifying and providing evidence for several "pathologies of Europeanization", i.e. legal and political deficiencies related to rule of law reform, such as legal instability, lack of generality and enforcement, and increased politicization. These pathologies result, among others, from a deficient approach of the eu to rule of law promotion and assessment. In particular, the author highlights three main fundamental problems of Europeanization in the area of the rule of law: 1) valuing quantity over quality; 2) partisan empowerment of domestic change agents; and 3) biased assessment of the rule of law. These problematic issues are further clarified on selected country examples of reform failure from see and the 2012 "rule of law crisis" in Romania. It is argued that given the eu's inability to objectively assess and effectively promote the rule of law, the eu should either abstain from evaluating rule of law or radically revise its approach and methodology, for instance by following the policy advice provided in this paper.

show abstract

Europeanization beyond Europe

Cited by 50 publications

References 31 publications

Europeanisation in new member and candidate states

Europeanisation in new member and candidate states

EU democracy promotion in the neighbourhood: from leverage to governance?

Europeanization and the Rule of Law: Towards a Pathological Turn

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About