Europeanization – theoretical background

1.1 Concept of Europeanization

In the minimalist point of view, Europeanization can mean the reaction on politics of the EU. The basic usage of the term can be considered within the fourfold typology (Featherstone 2003: 6-12). 1. Historic Phenomenon – in this case, term is used by historians as a name for process of export of European values out of the territory of Europe and is mainly connected with problem of colonial empires; 2. Transnational Cultural Diffusion – denominating of diffusion of cultural norms, values and ideas among the states in Europe; 3. Institutional Adaptation – this means adaptation to institutional pressures coming from the EU institutions. At the same time it can be perceived as forcing subnational governance or as defensive strategy against globalization; 4. Adaptation of Policies and Policy Processes – this is the common use of the term at present-day.

Generally and most frequently the concept is applied to the process of European integration whereas influencing not only the member states of the EU but also the candidate countries and even other European countries which do not participate in the process of European integration (Dančák, Fiala, Hloušek 2005: 13, 19).

The perspective which is prevailing in Europeanization research is the institutional view – for example J. Caporaso thinks of Europeanization as of a political institutionalism. This view includes development of formal and informal rules, norms and practices governing the policies on transnational, national and regional level. This approach enables to involve more different views of Europeanization, including creating institutions on the EU level, impact of membership on the national policy and also defence against globalization (Featherstone 2003: 13). In more detail, Risse, Cowles and Caporaso in their approach to Europeanization stem from the assumption that deepening of European integration develops the governing structures on the European level. This leads not just to creation of European political, social and legal institutions but especially to creation of political network among these institutions (Risse, Cowles, Caporaso 2001: 1). In this case, new elements come to interaction with the ones that were in the system originally, in a three steps framework of change of domestic structures which includes Europeanization, misfit and mediating factors (Risse, Cowles, Caporaso 2001: 6-12).

This conception points to another classical work on Europeanization of Tanja Börzel and Thomas Risse with the idea that Europeanization must be “inconvenient” and there must be some degree of “misfit” or incompatibility between European-level processes, policies and institutions and domestic-level processes, policies and institutions which creates adaptational pressure that then causes domestic changes³ (Börzel, Risse 2000: 1; Börzel, Risse 2003: 60-63).

Most of the works, mainly in the earlier period of research, use the top-down approach⁴ (as yet can be observed in the paradigms named above). This paper will be restricted to this perspective as well. For understanding this viewpoint we can use the definition of Europeanization introduced by Radaelli (2003: 30) which is also relevant for our purpose of examining the interrelated processes in a candidate state. According to him ‘Europeanization consists of processes of (a) construction, (b) diffusion, and (c) institutionalization of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, “ways of doing things”, and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process and then incorporated in the logic of domestic (national and subnational) discourse, identities, political structures, and public policies’.

The top-down perspective is apparent in this definition, but the “adaptation” and incorporation of European decisions on domestic level does not presume existence of coherent, rational EU level of decision-making from which Europeanization would stem. The emphasis is still placed on existence of political competition and engagement on domestic level (Radaelli 2003: 30-31)

The implication of this definition reposes upon the fact that it does not limit the scope of influence of Europeanization to just one sphere of political system, but on the contrary includes all three of them – polity (formation of institutions), policy (creating the rules, values, procedures, paradigms of policy) and politics (changing rules, informal rules, political culture, values and identities).

This conception of Europeanization including all the three dimensions is particularly significant for the purposes of this paper. As Radaelli (2004) mentions: ‘One limitation of the current literature is that it works in a ‘compartimentalised’ manner by considering only one dimension at the time and ignoring the others. The most exciting projects, however, have shown that the three dimensions (politics, policy, and politics) interact, often in subtle and indirect ways’ (ibid: 14). The fact is that Europeanized policies change state-society relations, empower technical bureaucracies, change the institutions of economic policy, transform the cultural and organizational ‘governance software’ of departments, transform the operating environment for party politics and enable domestic actors to tilt the balance of power between regions and central government.⁵

Following the latter regard I will proceed in my work with the aim to identify in which areas we can observe influence of Europeanization in Turkish political system. As we will come through all the three dimensions, it should help us to see the issue in a broader perspective respecting the interconnections among the particular areas as well as to compare the extent to which the dimensions are affected.

The question yet to be answered is how to actually identify that it was influence of Europeanization that caused the change on domestic level and what its results are. Radaelli (2003: 36-37) suggests identifying the process of Europeanization by following these principles:

• 
  The time sequence – temporal causal sequences matter, Europeanization must precede the change
  
• 
  Contra factual perspective – would the change occur even without the Europeanization influence?
  
• 
  Clarifying the distinction between EU policy and Europeanization. The latter does not presuppose the former
  
• 
  Clarifying the role of socialization processes. Socialization is neither sufficient, nor necessary condition for Europeanization.