Oligarchization, formalization, adaptation? Linking Sociological Theory and EU Enlargement Research

Abstract

This article reviews emergent literature on the effects of Eastern enlargement on EU decision-making. After recalling pre-enlargement hypotheses we inspect empirical findings on that issue. Whereas some authors stress a 'business as usual' reading of post-enlargement decision-making, others point out changes. In order to better understand the processes of post-enlargement governance we draw on three sociological group theories -oligarchization, formalization and adaptationand assess their applicability to the case of the EU. While we present only preliminary evidence for each of these theories, our secondary literature analysis underlines that the complexity of enlargement demands a widening of the theoretical scope. In such a perspective enlargement research can contribute to more general debates about decision-making in the EU.

The Informal Politics of Legislation

“…The 2004 "big bang" enlargement from the EU-15 to the EU-25 was an exceptionally steep increase and is therefore uniquely suited to test H1. Furthermore, this choice follows established scholarship on postaccession decision making, which treats 2004 as the defining increase in group size (see Bailer, Hertz, & Leuffen, 2009, for an overview).…”

The impact of the Eastern enlargement on the decision-making capacity of the European Union

“…In addition to the hypothesized effect of enlargement that works mostly through the changing preferences (interests) represented in the EU (that underpins the logic of the spatial models discussed above), sociological and social psychological theories suggest additional causal channels and mechanisms (for an overview, see Bailer et al 2009;Kelemen et al 2014). According to these theories, the mere number of participants matters a great deal because it affects communication patterns, consensus-forming, the level of formalization and the mode of decision-making more generally.…”