A CASE OF PARTIAL CONVERGENCE: THE EUROPEANIZATION OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE
| Author | CHRISTIAN VAN STOLK,JAN‐HINRIK MEYER‐SAHLING |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12122 |
| Published date | 01 March 2015 |
| Date | 01 March 2015 |
doi : 10. 1111/p adm .12122
A CASE OF PARTIAL CONVERGENCE:
THE EUROPEANIZATION OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE
JAN-HINRIK MEYER-SAHLING AND CHRISTIAN VAN STOLK
This article compares the Europeanization of central government in four Central and Eastern Euro-
pean countries (CEECs): Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and Slovakia. Using a large N survey of ministerial
civil servants, it nds that the Europeanization of central government is characterized by partial
convergence. The scope of Europeanization is large and similar among CEECs, reaching widely
and deeply into government ministries. Moreover, patterns of Europeanization are similar among
CEECs: the same ministries form the ‘inner core’ and ‘outer circle’ of Europeanized ministries; only a
small proportion of civil servants work full-time on EU issues and routinely engage in activities that
‘project’ national policies at EU level. Compared to old member states, patterns of Europeanization
show signs of convergence, while the scope of Europeanization is larger in CEECs.
INTRODUCTION
This article examines the Europeanization of central government in the new member states
of Central and Eastern Europe (CEECs). Much of the debate on the Europeanization of
central government has concentrated on the impact of EU conditionality on administrative
capacity building before accession (Dimitrova 2005; Camyar 2010). Morerecently, the focus
of study has shifted towards the development of public administration after the accession
of CEECs to the EU. This research has found that the end of conditionality did not neces-
sarily lead to reform backsliding. Instead, the CEECs have taken diverse pathways after
becoming full members of the EU (Dimitrova 2010; Meyer-Sahling 2011).
The examination of the effectiveness of EU conditionality before and beyond the date
of accession represents an angle of research that is specic to CEECs. Research that
bridges the study of Europeanization in the East and West and hence the old and the
new member states is much less common. An important exception concerns the study of
EU coordination structures. Their emergence and effectiveness have been examined for
the pre-accession period (Lippert et al. 2001; Zubek 2008). More recently, the adaptation
of pre-accession institutional structures to post-accession realities has been subject to
investigation, applying conceptual frameworks that were initially developed for the
old member states (Dimitrova and Toshkov 2007; Zubek 2011; Batory 2012; Zubek and
Staronova 2012).
In this article, we contribute to the emerging body of literature that seeks to bridge
the study of Europeanization in old and new member states. The article has two major
objectives. First, we apply the insights of studies of the Europeanization of central govern-
ment in old member states and Western Europeannon-member states to the new member
states of Central and Eastern Europe. Specically, we rely on and extend the framework
that Mastenbroek and Princen (2010) applied to the Netherlands for the comparative ana-
lysis of CEECs. Second, we examine the Europeanization of central government in four
CEECs – Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and Slovakia – comparing them rst among each other
Jan-Hinrik Meyer-Sahling is in the School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, UK. Chris-
tian van Stolk is in the Department of Employment, Education, Social Policy & Population, RAND Europe, Cambridge,
UK.
Public Administration Vol.93, No. 1, 2015 (230–247)
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
EUROPEANIZATION OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 231
and then to old member states from Western Europe to the extent that comparable empir-
ical information is available.
In order to capture the Europeanization of central government, we examine the extent
to which the EU affects (i) the structure and (ii) the culture of governmental organiza-
tions, and (iii) the activities of civil servants employed at central government level. For the
comparison of CEECs among each other and with Western European member states, we
further distinguish the scope of Europeanization and the patterns of Europeanization. The
former refers to the extent to which the EU has been incorporated into the structure, cul-
ture, and activities of central government organizations and staff. The latter addresses the
internal ordering of the three dimensions of Europeanization, such as the distinction of an
‘inner core’ and ‘outer circle’ of ministries dealing with EU affairs (Laffan 2006; Laffanand
O’Mahoney 2007) and the relative importance of specic types of EU-related activities in
the day-to-day work of civil servants, such as the distinction between ‘projection-related’
and ‘reception-related’ activities (Bulmer and Burch 2009).
The empirical analysis is based on individual-level data from a survey of civil servants
employed in central government ministries. It presents ve major ndings. First, in CEECs,
the EU reaches widely and deeply into central government, in that the day-to-day work of
more than half of the civil servants is affected by EU issues. Second, the large scope of Euro-
peanization is evident in all CEECs studied in this article. Third, patterns of Europeaniza-
tion are also similar across the four CEECs. They indicate the ‘two-sidedness’ of Euro-
peanization, in that a small group of ofcials work full-time on EU affairs, while the major-
ity of ofcials spend a small part of their working week on EU issues. Two-sidednessis fur-
ther evident in the distinction between an ‘inner core’ and an ‘outer circle’ of Europeanized
ministries, and a distinction between ofcials who deal with ‘projection-related EU activ-
ities’ and a much larger group that deals primarily with ‘reception-related EU activities’.
Fourth, signicant differences between the CEECs are limited to the cultural dimension
of Europeanization. Civil servants differ in their support for EU integration by and large
reecting citizen attitudes towards European integration. Finally, the comparison to old
member states from Western Europe suggests that the scope of Europeanization is larger
in CEECs, while patterns of Europeanization are remarkably similar in the East and West.
However, comparable data are largely limited to the Netherlands and a handful of other
old member states and non-member states from Western Europe, implying the need for
further cross-regional studies of the Europeanization of central government.
The article further places the ndings in the context of the literature on the Europeaniza-
tion of central government, in particular, arguments that predict: (i) the convergence of
CEECs among each other and with old member states from Western Europe; (ii) the
regional exceptionalism of CEECs in comparison to the old member states; and (iii) the
emergence of clusters of CEECs and hence the differentiation among CEECs and vis-à-vis
old member states. We argue that the Europeanization of central government qualies
as a case of partial convergence. The large range of similarities among the CEECs and
between them and old member states provides support for the notion of convergence.
However, convergence is partial, as it does not consistently apply across all dimensions
of Europeanization. Moreover, the larger proportion of ofcials who are involved in EU
activities in CEECs suggests – to the extent that comparable data are available – a wider
and deeper Europeanization of central government in CEECs compared to old member
states and non-member states from Western Europe.
The article is divided into four parts. The rst part discusses the literature on the Euro-
peanization of central government, in particular the framework proposed by Mastenbroek
Public Administration Vol.93, No. 1, 2015 (230–247)
© 2014 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial