Reflexive Geographies of Europeanization

Abstract

Mainstream academic accounts tend to reduce Europeanization to the processes of domestic adaptation to the project of regional integration epitomized by the European Union. We take a look into the history of this current conceptualization and critically examine the foundations on which such an elitist and parsimonious idea of Europeanization has been built. To attend to the myriad faces of Europeanization as a geopolitical discourse and practice, we argue for a pluralist conduct of inquiry into the manifold power relations in Europe. We thereby call for a reflexive approach which would allow for a more encompassing and contextualized understanding of the sociospatial dimensions of these intricate processes and would address many silences in the multifaceted geographies of Europeanization.

Re‐Thinking Territorial Cohesion in the European Planning Context

“…However, views on Europeanization have changed — on the one hand because the EU was unable to directly regulate territorial planning at the national level (Evers, ), but on the other hand particularly because Europeanization was being explained on the basis of social rather than political theory within the increasing literature on the geographies and spatialities of Europeanization (Clark and Jones, ; Rovnyi and Bachmann, ; Moisio et al ., ). Clark and Jones () have divided the different conceptualizations that emerged using three explanatory variables that they deemed to be of ‘profound political‐geographic importance’: territory/territoriality; changing patterns of government and governance; and constellations of power.…”

“…For the past 30 years, the influence of European Union (EU) policy guidelines in the processes of national and regional planning of its member states has been steadily increasing. This phenomenon is described in the literature as the ‘Europe effect’, or Europeanization, and is deemed to have had a significant impact on the shaping of concepts, guidelines and strategic orientations of member states’ public policies (Ladrech, ; Börzel and Risse, ; Cowles and Caporaso, ; Featherstone and Radaelli, ; Vink, ; Radaelli, ; Dühr et al ., ; Clark and Jones, ; Ladrech, ; Rovnyi and Bachmann, ; Luukkonen, ).…”

“…Consequently, since the 1990s and the 'spatial awakening' of EU policies (Rumford, 2006;Moisio, 2011;Luukkonen, 2015), scholars have looked more closely at the implications of Europeanization on political geography and territorial planning (see reviews in Luukkonen, 2015; see also Rovnyi and Bachmann, 2012;Moisio et al, 2013). Indeed, as the EU gradually moved towards instituting spatial planning as an intrinsic part of its agenda (Faludi, 2007;Evers, 2008) so did the perception of Europeanization evolve from a more politically based and governance-based discourse (Pollack, 2005;Luukkonen, 2015)--what Clark and Jones (2008) called 'hegemonic state-centered integrationist vision'--to a more territorially based, socio-spatial process.…”

“…Indeed, as the EU gradually moved towards instituting spatial planning as an intrinsic part of its agenda (Faludi, 2007;Evers, 2008) so did the perception of Europeanization evolve from a more politically based and governance-based discourse (Pollack, 2005;Luukkonen, 2015)--what Clark and Jones (2008) called 'hegemonic state-centered integrationist vision'--to a more territorially based, socio-spatial process. According to Rovnyi and Bachmann (2012) Europeanization should be regarded as a historically contingent and socially contextualized practice, transcending narrow views on high politics to take temporally and geographically specific forms. And, as Moisio et al (2013) add, there is a need, particularly in a crisis context, for a spatially sensitive contextual approach that can capture the highly variegated manifestations of 'Europeanizing' processes across these different spaces.…”

Beyond Fortress Europe. Unbounding European Normative Power and the Neighbourhood Policy

“…This new approach may help in overcoming the limitations of a field of enquiry which has been criticized for being largely state‐centric, privileging structure over agency and being limited by a neo‐positivistic (or “thin” constructivist at best) perspective (Borzel and Risse ). In this, the suggestion from Alun Jones and Julian Clark to study the reproduction of Europeanization “through the tacit micro‐geographies of everyday life” (Clark and Jones : 304), has led to a relevant body of geographical work in which the ENP is one of the main cases of reference (Moisio et al ; Rovnyi and Bachmann ). This work is paralleled by recent attempts from political scientists to more concretely understand how Europeanization functions partially and non‐hierarchically via specific networks, policy communities and social learning processes rather than focusing solely on its outcome (Borzel and Risse ; Stone ).…”