The Europeanisation of Integration Policies

Abstract

This article analyses the development of integration policies concerning third country nationals at the level of the European Union (EU). Starting with the discovery of recent policy developments at the European level, including new European directives mainly granting social rights to non-EU citizens, the paper proceeds to examine the reasons that enabled this shift from the national to the European level of decision making. It concludes that integration policies have been created as a new EU policy field amidst the also fairly new policy field of immigration policies. In light of the theoretical concept of ''organisational fields,'' the interests and motives of the main actors involved in the emergence of this policy field are analysed. The research combines neo-functionalist and intergovernmentalist assumptions, and it results in the following conclusions: First, a European integration policy could only be established within the emerging field of immigration policies, which laid the groundwork for member state collaborations in this highly sensitive policy area. Secondly, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, several non-governmental organisations and most notably the European Commission played an important role in promoting integration policies at the European level. Their engagement is interpreted as a necessary but not as a sufficient condition for the establishment of this policy field. Thirdly, these actors tried to strengthen the status of integration policies by emphasising the linkage between successful integration policies and economic and social cohesion. This semantic strategy, among other discussed reasons, facilitated the member states' decision at the European summit in Tampere 1999 that all third country nationals shall be granted comparable rights to EU citizens.

Canarios en una mina: la crisis migratoria de los cayucos y la europeización de la política migratoria

“…On one hand, some scholars assert that the EU has actually enhanced the role of the state and strengthened sovereignty in a way that fortifies a state's capacity to govern (Schain, 2009). On the other hand, applying some Europeanization literature, other scholars assert that EU law constrains the state with European rules and obligations, hard governance, such as Schengen, that must be enforced (Menz, 2010;Rosenow, 2009). Europeanization literature, which is quite diverse, generally suggests that the EU has a role in shaping domestic politics creating policy convergence across Europe using both hard and soft governance (Bach et al, 2015;Green Cowles et al, 2001;Menz, 2010;Radaelli, 2000).…”

The Ethical Dimensions of Dialogue Between Policymakers: Learning Through Interaction Over Migrant Integration Dilemmas

“…Existing responses to these issues have been tested by the pressures of migration from outside the European Union, perceived differential patterns of dealing with migration between existing member states, and the joining of each new state. This has led to a complex Europe-wide structural developmental process (Rosenow 2009), in which multilateral political discussions have continued to play a significant part (Mendez 2012), resulting in further common policy statements and shared principles being carefully agreed (e.g. Commission of the European Communities 2005; Taran 2008).…”

The European Commission and the Configuration of Internal European Union Borders: Direct and Indirect Contribution

“…The European Parliament's vocal opposition to the pillar structure in the first half of the 1990s (Uçarer, , p. 8) and to the lack of EU integration policy agenda for TCNs (Rosenow, , p. 144) shows that such a stance is possible. Instead, the Commission has opted for the much more low‐key approach of building up the confidence of the Council and the Member States, participating as much as possible in the work on JHA and creating a dialogue around its framework (Uçarer, ; Rosenow, ). Simultaneously, at successive intergovernmental conferences negotiating Treaty changes, the Commission has advocated amendments to the decision‐making rules in its favour (cf.…”