what is europeanisation?

and other questions on a new research agenda[1]

maarten vink

WHAT (VERY BRIEFLY) IS EUROPEANISATION?

http://www.essex.ac.uk/ECPR/publications/eps/onlineissues/autumn2003/research/vink.htm

The concept of Europeanisation enjoys increasing popularity within the study of European integration. Although there is considerable disagreement with regard to what it actually is, the bulk of the literature speaks of Europeanisation when something in national political systems is affected by something European. Scholars study the administrative adaptation of national states to (future) membership of the European Union; the implementation of EU directives; and, from a wider perspective, change and resilience in the structures and identities of nation-states under pressure from developments at the European level. Hence, a working definition of Europeanisation might be domestic change caused by European integration. This, and other notions of Europeanisation, are currently being explored in what has become a major new agenda for research[2]. The provisional definition given above obviously leaves us with many unanswered questions, such as what kind of change is Europeanisation? What is it not? What is 'European' about Europeanisation? Where does it come from? What does it do to us? After introducing Europeanisation and the different conceptual controversies, this article proceeds with a section on the new institutionalist approach to the question of 'how Europe matters', followed by a section on the question of how Europeanisation relates to (theories of) European integration. This paper aims to outline the main questions related to the new research agenda of Europeanisation, to formulate some preliminary answers to these sometimes thorny questions, and finally to state some conclusions on where we should go from here.

WHY A NEW RESEARCH AGENDA?

Scholars of European integration increasingly employ the concept of Europeanisation to assess the European sources of national politics. This shift away from direct study of European institutions towards a more indirect approach via the national political domain has been evident since the mid-1990s in collections on the institutional adaptation of member states to EU membership (Hanf and Soetendorp, 1998; Kassim et al, 2000). A new research agenda focusing more generally on changes in national political systems that can be attributed to European integration has now evolved (see Green Cowles et al., 2001 and Featherstone and Radaelli, 2003 for two authoritative collections). In contrast with the liberal intergovernmentalist stress on the domestic sources of European politics (Moravcsik, 1993, 1998), the new Europeanisation research agenda has provided the study of European integration with a 'Second Image Reversed' (Gourevitch, 1978). This new agenda contests (or amends) not only the intergovernmental paradigm and its focus on 'grand bargains', but more generally all

traditional approaches to European integration. After all, classic neo-functionalism (Haas, 1958), its contemporary counterpart, supranational governance (Stone Sweet and Sandholtz, 1997), and to a lesser extent the multilevel governance approach (Hooghe and Marks, 2001), all tend to concentrate on European institutions and their output in terms of European policies. The Europeanisation research agenda has undoubtedly enriched the study of European integration. Not only has it highlighted a number of previously under-researched questions related to the domestic implementation of EU policies, but it now focuses on wider changes in the 'organisational logic of national politics and policy-making' (Ladrech, 1994: 70; cf. Harmsen, 1999; Falkner, 2001). This means that scholars increasingly study aspects of national politics that have traditionally been assumed less subject to European influence, such as political parties (Ladrech, 2002), party systems (Mair, 2000), local government (De Rooij, 2002), refugee policies (Lavenex, 2001) or citizenship (Checkel, 2001; Vink, 2001). Finally, the study of Europeanisation processes are not restricted to EU member states only, but also take place in non-members Switzerland and Norway (Mach et al, 2002) and in candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe (Grabbe, 2001).

SO WHAT KIND OF CHANGE IS EUROPEANISATION?

Brzel (1999: 574) defines Europeanisation as 'a process by which domestic policy areas become increasingly subject to European policymaking.' This definition has been criticised for limiting the domestic impact of Europe to changing policy practices, and thus neglecting the more indirect ways in which European integration affects domestic politics. Drawing upon Ladrechs (1994) broader definition, Radaelli's (2003: 30) conception of Europeanisation refers to 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 making of EU decisions and then incorporated in the logic of domestic discourses, identities, political structures and public policies. Although this definition does underline the importance of change not only in the output of political systems (public policies) but also in the underlying structures and identities, it is unlikely to survive as a clear definition of Europeanisation. Its specification of both how and to what extent Europe impacts on national politics would seem more an empirical question than a defining element, and, though important, arguably renders the definition too broad. More concisely, Hix and Goetz (2000: 27) define Europeanisation as 'a process of change in national institutional and policy practices that can be attributed to European integration.'

AND WHAT IS IT NOT?

To avoid the danger of conceptual stretching we need, as Radaelli (2003) notes, to specify not only what Europeanisation is, but also what it is not. Europeanisation

should not be confused with convergence, or harmonisation, or political integration. Convergence must not be used synonymously with Europeanisation because there is a difference between a process and its consequences (Radaelli, 2003: 33). There may have been convergence in the monetary policies of the states that participated in Economic and Monetary Union (Sbragia, 2001). Yet, European regimes may be converging, as in the case of citizenship policies, not as a result of initiatives emanating from Brussels, but as a response to domestic considerations (Freeman and gelman, 1998). Harmonisation of national policies is often seen as an important goal of European integration, but empirical research suggests that Europeanisation is often manifest in a 'differential' impact of European requirements on domestic policies (Hritier et al, 2001). Understanding, finally, why countries pool and delegate sovereignty (Milward, 1994; Moravcsik, 1998) is not the same as understanding the specific dynamics, or even the unexpected consequences, this process of political integration brings about at the domestic level. Europeanisation is crucially related to the feedback process of European integration. In this regard Risse et al (2001: 1) are clearly the exception in defining Europeanisation as 'the emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures of governance' (emphasis added). This definition diverges from most of the literature on Europeanisation because it does not relate necessarily to the domestic level, and looks very similar to such concepts as 'European integration' (the process whereby national political systems become more closely linked within one European system) and 'Communitarisation' (the transfer of competencies from the national to the European Community level). Naturally, Europeanisation cannot take place without 'Europe', without some kind of European level 'structures of governance'. Yet the whole point of the new research agenda is that instituting bodies such as the European Commission or the European Parliament, and adopting treaties and secondary legislation, do not tell us much (or at least not the whole story) about what this means for the political organisation of Europe. Their effectiveness remains to be observed. To signify the importance of emergent European structures of governance we need to compare them with (traditional) national structures of governance, and analyse the supposedly changing modes of decisionmaking, policy practices and political identities. We will return to this important point in Section 6.

WHAT IS 'EUROPEAN' ABOUT EUROPEANISATION?

The concept of Europeanisation is seemingly monopolised by scholars of the process of unification between the member states of the European Union, and concentrates on requirements coming from Brussels. Yet, it must be recognised that 'European integration' in itself covers a wider range of processes and institutions. Europeanisation is more than just EU-isation. Think of such institutions as the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe (COE). These institutions are often highly intertwined with the European Union in terms of organisation and even identity. Perhaps more importantly, by not restricting the concept of Europeanisation solely to the impact of the EU, we can apply the same methodological tools to larger processes within Europe, and to other cases of regional integration. In this way we can embrace the theoretical argument that views the European Union not as a unique phenomenon requiring a sui generis explanation, but as an advanced instance of regional co-

operation (Moravcsik, 1998: 4-5; cf. Caporaso, 1999: 161).

WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?

Many scholars distinguish the new research agenda of Europeanisation from traditional approaches to European integration by emphasising its exclusively topdown approach. In the words of Hix and Goetz (2000: 3-4), to be able to understand the impact of European integration on domestic systems it does not matter whether delegation is determined by domestic government preferences, driven by transnational economic actors, or 'cultivated' by supranational entrepreneurs. What matters for domestic actors and institutions is how the delegation to the European level changes policy outcomes in the domestic arena. Indeed in all Europeanisation research there is undeniably a dominant Europe-tonational element visible of the kind suggested by Hix and Goetz (and despite the adoption of a somewhat awkward definition of Europeanisation, this is even the case for all the empirical chapters in Green Cowles et al, 2001). At face value, such a top-down approach would imply that we need to look at, let us say, domestic policy A or domestic structure X and see how much it has changed between time t0 and t1 (before and after European integration in a given policy area). However, approaching Europeanisation exclusively from a 'top-down perspective may in the end obscure the more complex two-way causality involved in European integration (Brzel, 1999: 574; but see Brzel, 2002: 195). After all, even when EU policies strongly affect domestic policies, these policies are the result of among other things political action by domestic actors such as governmental representatives or interest groups that shift domestic issues to the European level (see Putnam 1988). This means that in order to study Europeanisation we need to concentrate on changes at the domestic level. But in order to understand how these changes come about we should also take into account which actors are interested in playing the 'European card' by shifting issues to the European level. Moreover, some basic insights into the dynamics of European integration should help us to understand why Europe is (or is not) involved in certain policy fields, or relevant to particular domestic political issues. For example, one of the classic distinctions in European integration theory, is that between 'negative integration' and 'positive integration', which leads to the observation that European integration involves both market-making and market-correcting policies (Scharpf, 1999). Negative integration follows the rationale of the common market and has a deregulatory or 'market-making' nature in that it demands that states comply with the principles of the internal market. It can be quite effective in achieving liberalisation in such fields as competition policy, by removing tariffs and other barriers to trade, often in tandem with supranational agencies such as the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Positive integration, by contrast, is an attempt to counteract the unwanted side effects of liberalisation processes through re-regulation at the European level. It is 'marketshaping' because it tries to intervene in the economy, in such areas as consumer protection, environmental policy, or safety at work, and it involves a broader

institutional adaptation to a specific European model at the domestic level (Scharpf 1999: 45). Of course there are also areas where 'the underlying conflicts of interest between the member states only allow it to adopt policies which are vague and more or less symbolic' (Knill and Lehmkuhl, 2002: 259). Free movement of persons, for example, has created pressure for 'flanking measures' in the field of asylum policy, but so far has not led to much binding legislation (Lavenex, 2001). Softer modes of EU governance such as the open method of co-ordination are the most recent answers to these conflicts of interest, and are now being adopted in such fields as employment and immigration (e.g. Commission of the European Communities, 2001).

WHAT DOES IT DO TO US?

Knowing that there are European policies, rules and norms, how do these actually affect domestic politics and policies? To answer this question, Europeanisation scholars have almost without exception reverted to the broad spectrum of theories that fall under the umbrella of the so-called 'new institutionalism'. One might even go so far as to say that the Europeanisation research agenda as such exemplifies the institutionalist turn in the political science of the 1980s and 1990s (Hix and Goetz, 2000: 18; cf. Brzel and Risse, 2003; Olsen, 2002). Institutional approaches can be characterised most concisely by the notion that 'institutions matter'. Institutions are classically understood as the formal rules, standard operating procedures and organisations of government. In the 'new' understanding, however, an institution also encompasses informal norms, routines and conventions. In as far as institutions are seen as norms or collective understandings that constitute the self-images and preferences of actors, one may see a clear link with the constructivist turn in International Relations theory (Checkel, 1998: 326, 341). The seemingly banal claim that institutions matter and influence relevant political behaviour must be understood primarily as a reaction to post-war behaviouralism and rational choice, which approach politics from a rather atomised conception of the individual. Moreover, as it is through the actions of individuals that institutions have an effect on political outcomes, new institutionalists need to answer the question how institutions affect the behaviour of individuals (e.g. March and Olsen, 1989; Hall and Taylor, 1996). There are basically two kinds of response to this question. The cultural approach 'emphasizes the extent to which individuals turn to established routines or familiar patterns of behaviour to attain their purposes' (Hall and Taylor, 1996: 939). Political behaviour is explained largely on the basis of what has been termed a logic of appropriateness. Such a 'thick' understanding of institutions contrasts with a much more 'thin' logic of expected consequences where individuals act strategically to realise their preferences (March and Olson, 1989: 23). This logic of action is termed a calculus approach because institutions have an impact 'by altering the expectations an actor has about the actions that others are likely to take in response to or simultaneously with his own action' (Hall and Taylor, 1996: 939). Individual action can then be seen as being at least partly exogenous to institutions and explained as strategic behaviour. Neither the identities nor preferences of actors are altered by the larger institutional setting in which action takes place.

The thick and thin understandings of institutions, or the corresponding cultural and calculus logics of action, result in what is generally acknowledged as two contrasting strains of new institutionalism: sociological and rational institutionalism[3]. When connecting these new institutionalisms with the study of Europeanisation we need, it seems, to come to terms with two problems. The first concerns the compatibility of the two strains. According to March and Olsen (1998) the logic of appropriateness and the logic of consequentialism go together perfectly well. What, however, would such a synthetic model imply and how useful is it? Second, the institutionalist focus does not entail a teleology of European integration (Bulmer, 1998: 368). What, then, does an institutional analysis of Europeanisation tell us about the nature of European integration? These two questions will be answered in the next two sections.

WHY CHOOSE BETWEEN THICK AND THIN EUROPEANISATION?

The contrast between appropriateness and consequentiality, between thick and thin Europeanisation, can best be explained through an example. One can think of the impact of European citizenship norms on domestic nationality debates. Checkel (2001: 180) hypothesises that the emergent consensus towards dual nationality within the Council of Europe in the case of Germany will either lead domestic actors to abandon the dominant ethnic conception of German nationality, or that it will 'only' limit the possibility of sticking to the traditional model without actually affecting the given preferences. In this particular case, it is apparent that at the moment, the Europeanisation of domestic citizenship policy is limited, due to the tentativeness of the emergent European norms (Checkel, 2001: 195-197; cf. Vink, 2001). Having established that sociological and rational institutionalism offer two contrasting accounts of how Europe matters, however, gives rise to the question of how both pathways relate to each other. Do they offer explanations for different phases of domestic change or are they mutually exclusive? The first 'synthetic' view seems to be favoured among scholars of Europeanisation (e.g. Brzel and Risse, 2003; Checkel, 2001: 196; Knill and Lehmkuhl, 2002; but note the outspoken choice of a sociological institutionalism of Risse et al, 2001: 15). This consensus goes back to March and Olsen's notion that each political action involves appropriateness and consequentiality. 'Political actors are constituted both by their interests, by which they evaluate their expected consequences, and by the rules embedded in their identities and political institutions. They calculate consequences and follow rules, and the relationship between the two is often subtle' (1998: 952). Notwithstanding its intuitive appeal, this 'synthetic' position might perhaps be overencompassing from a theoretical perspective. A parsimonious account of Europeanisation should, after all, not conceal the great discrepancy between creating, or making the best of, new European opportunity structures (calculus) and adopting a new set of preferences, or even a new identity (cultural). To give an example, there is quite a difference between governments using Europe to circumvent national constraints on immigration policies (Guiraudon, 2000), on the one hand, and national decision-makers adopting a 'post-national' way of thinking about migrant inclusion (Soysal, 1994), on the other. This is not to suggest that we should take up a position of (renewed) theoretical dogmatism. On the contrary, an important task of empirical studies would be to determine the relative weight of the cultural and calculus

approaches in explaining Europeanisation, or domestic resilience, for that matter (Hix and Goetz, 2000: 18-20).

WHAT DOES IT TELL US ABOUT EUROPEAN INTEGRATION?

Perhaps one of the most obvious shortcomings of the Europeanisation research agenda is its failure to relate to the traditional integration literature. To an extent this is understandable given that its 'domestic politics' perspective contrasts with the classic approach to European integration, as explained above. A comparativist's perspective does indeed shed a necessarily different light on European integration (Hix, 1994; cf. Gourevitch, 1978). Yet, and apart from sometimes focusing too much on technical implementation details, scholars of Europeanisation run the risk of missing the bigger picture by over-emphasising differences in processes of change across European countries. Accordingly we need to remind ourselves of the key questions that are at stake, and hypothesise how our results might relate to the 'grand theories' of European integration. It goes without saying that the traditional unit of analysis in world politics the national state is being increasingly challenged or 'hollowed out' by processes of globalisation, internationalisation or regionalisation (Rhodes, 1994). The case of the European Union is one of the most advanced instances of nation-states working towards an 'ever closer union' (EC Treaty, Preamble) and seemingly becoming ever more porous. In questioning the state of the state, therefore, the Europeanisation research agenda first of all responds to the general concern of 'unit variation' in contemporary political science (Kahler, 2002). The key task at hand is to measure more completely the degree to which state porosity currently prevails. More specifically regarding the European case, the viability of the sovereign state as such has been in question since the early days of post-war European economic cooperation. Although the endpoint of the integration process has never been a univocal 'United States of Europe', even a quasi-federal trajectory would indeed signify the beginning of the end of the nation-state as the dominant unit for political organisation. For example, Jean Monnet, the first President of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, advocated supranational competencies only in certain economic sectors, but not without seeing the potential for further integration. Such 'spillover' from limited to wider economic cooperation forms the core of the socalled neo-functionalist theories of European integration (Haas, 1958). These theories are functionalist to the extent that they acknowledge that specific goals, such as exchange rate stability, can sometimes only be achieved by taking further actions, such as wider monetary cooperation. The hollowing out of the state in this model is then preordained by the fact that member states are 'resolved to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe' (EC Treaty, Preamble). With regard to the logic of institutionalisation, neo-functionalism and its contemporary counterpart, supranational governance, underline the importance of transnational activities. 'Where cross-border activities are of increasing importance, we expect to find the creation and growth of supranational governance. () Rising

levels of cross-border transactions generate demand for EC rules and dispute resolution' (Stone Sweet and Sandholtz, 1997: 311). Although supranational theories do not necessarily preclude actor-centred strains of institutionalism (see e.g. Pierson, 1996), they do tend to emphasise the broader cultural environment in which decisions are being made. European organisations and rules are increasingly taken for granted and structure the behaviour of national actors. Hence we might connect those 'thicker' forms of Europeanisation, as hypothesised by sociological institutionalism, to supranational theories of European integration (cf. Stone Sweet et al, 2001: 6). A contrasting model of European integration is provided by intergovernmentalist theory. Here Europeanisation is viewed as contributing not so much to the demise, but rather to the rescue of the nation-state. 'The surrenders of national sovereignty after 1950 were one aspect of the successful reassertion of the nation-state as the basic organisational entity of Europe' (Milward, 1994: 438). According to Moravcsik (1993: 474), a proponent of so-called liberal intergovernmentalism, 'the EC can be analysed as a successful international regime designed to manage economic interdependence through negotiated policy co-ordination.' What matters for understanding the European Union are the preferences and power of its member states because these explain the choices of sovereign governments to shift decision-making powers to European institutions. By implication, because member state governments remain in the drivers seat, European integration is by no means preordained to result in a federal 'ever closer' union. The persistence of national power, on the contrary, suggests that the disappearance of the nation-state remains unlikely (see Moravcsik, 1998 for a fuller account). Looking more closely at the domestic impact of European integration, intergovernmentalists depart from two-level theories where national executives are simultaneously involved in international negotiations and bargaining with domestic interest groups. Governments, or powerful groups within the executive, can achieve more optimal outcomes at the international level if they convincingly show that their hands are tied by domestic commitments. More importantly, they can avoid blame at home for unpopular policies by pointing to international package deals and the need to live up to international obligations (Putnam, 1988). One could argue that European integration redistributes domestic political influence in favour of the executive because it shifts control over agenda setting, alters decision-making procedures, and creates informational asymmetries and new justifications for domestic policies. National executives are increasingly able to 'cut slack' and loosen the constraints imposed by legislatures, interest groups and other domestic actors (Moravcsik, 1994). By pointing to the manifestation of Europeanisation in changing opportunity structures, where calculating actors strategically adapt to new circumstances, the intergovernmentalist theory of integration clearly connects to the rational strain of new institutionalism.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

The foregoing discussion of the major questions related to the new research agenda of Europeanisation signifies the need for (1) conceptual clarification, (2) explicit theorising and empirical testing, and what might be called (3) 'scientific unity'. First, when defining what Europeanisation is we should clarify the difference with other

contiguous terms, if at least it is to become more than just a 'fashionable term' (Olsen, 2002). Boiled down to its distinguishing features, I contend that Europeanisation is always (to a certain extent) a process of domestic political change caused (somehow) by processes of European integration. This very minimalist definition forces us to focus perhaps primarily on the national level, but by no means exclusively because finding out to what extent, and how, national politics is affected by European developments logically implies a focus on the relationship between the two levels. Second, in order to develop our research agenda beyond the scope of merely technical implementation studies it is of crucial importance to be as explicit as possible in stating why we do or do not expect domestic change in certain areas. Hence we should always first answer the question why Europe can be expected to be involved in domestic matters at all, for example by looking at its relation to market-making or market-correcting policies. I have argued that the new institutionalist theories are particularly suitable for accounting for domestic change, and that contrasting hypotheses should be developed from the sociological and rational strains of institutionalism. Such propositions should then be tested as rigorously as possible, where the extent of change in the identities and strategies of domestic actors is crucial in deciding between what might be called thick and thin Europeanisation. Finally, and notwithstanding the specific 'domestic politics' perspective of the Europeanisation research agenda, we must not lose sight of the larger question that has been at the basis of classic integration theories: the transformation of the nation-state. At first glance, it appears that there is ample room to make a connection between thick Europeanisation and supranational theories, on the one hand, and thin Europeanisation and intergovernmental theories, on the other. This would arguably allow for more 'scientific unity' between scholars of Europeanisation who, at the moment, seem to be dispersed along a continuum between a more European-focused international relations and a more nationally-focused comparative politics. It could also shed some new light on old questions related to the vitality of national politics.

references
Brzel, T. (1999), 'Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to Europeanisation in German and Spain', Journal of Common Market Studies, 37:4, 573-596. Brzel, T. (2002), 'Pace-Setting, Foot-Dragging, and Fence-Sitting: Member State Responses to Europeanization', Journal of Common Market Studies, 40:2, 193-214. Brzel, T. and T. Risse (2003), 'Conceptualising the Domestic Impact of Europe' in K. Featherstone and C. M. Radaelli (eds), The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bulmer, S. (1998), 'New Institutionalism and the Governance of the Single European Market', Journal of European Public Policy, 5:3, 365-386.

Caporaso, J.A. (1999), 'Towards a Normal Science of Regional Integration,' Journal of European Public Policy, 6:1, 160-164. Checkel, J.T. (1998), 'The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory, World Politics, 50: 2, 324-348. Checkel, J.T. (2001), 'The Europeanization of Citizenship?' in M. Green Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse, (eds), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Commission of the European Communities (2001), 'Communication on an open method of co-ordination for the community immigration policy.' COM (2001), 387 final. De Rooij, R. (2002), 'The Impact of the European Union on Local Government in the Netherlands', Journal of European Public Policy, 9:3, 447-467. Falkner, G. (2001), 'The Europeanisation of Austria: Misfit, Adaptation and Controversies', European Integration Online Papers, 5:13, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2001-013a.htm. Featherstone, K. and C.M. Radaelli, (eds), (2003), The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Freeman, G.P. and N. gelman (1998), 'Homeland Citizenship Policies and the Status of Third Country Nationals in the European Union', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 24:4, 769-788. Gourevitch, P. (1978), 'The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics', International Organisation, 32:4, 881-911. Grabbe, H. (2001), 'How Does Europeanisation Affect CEE Governance? Conditionality, Diffusion and Diversity', Journal of European Public Policy, 8:6, 10131031. Green Cowles, M., J. Caporaso and T. Risse, (eds) (2001), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Guiraudon, V. (2000), 'European Integration and Migration Policy: Vertical Policymaking as Venue Shopping', Journal of Common Market Studies, 38:2, 251-271. Haas, E. (1958), The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces, 19501957, Stanford, Stanford University Press. Hall, P. and R. Taylor (1996), 'Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms', Political Science, 44:5, 936-957. Hanf, K. and B. Soetendorp (eds), (1998), Adapting to European Integration: Small States and the European Union, London and New York, Longman.

Harmsen, R. (1999), The Europeanization of National Administrations: A Comparative Study of France and the Netherlands, Governance, 12:1, 81-113. Hay, C. and D. Wincott (1998), 'Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism', Political Studies, 46:5, 951-957. Hritier, A., D. Kerwer, C. Knill, D. Lehmkuhl, M. Teutsch and A-C. Douillet (2001), Differential Europe. The European Union Impact on National Policymaking, Boulder, Rowman and Littlefield. Hix, S. (1994), 'The Study of the European Community: The Challenge to Comparative Politics', West European Politics, 17:1, 1-30. Hix, S. and K. Goetz (2000), 'Introduction: European Integration and National Political Systems', West European Politics, 23:4, 1-26. Hooghe, L. and G. Marks (2001), Multi-level Governance and European Integration, Boulder, Rowman and Littlefield. Kahler, M. (2002), 'The State of the State in World Politics' in I. Katznelson and H. Milner, (eds), Political Science: State of the Discipline, New York and London, W.W. Norton. Kassim, H., B.G. Peters and V. Wright, (eds), (2000), The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The Domestic Level, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Knill, C. and D. Lehmkuhl (2002), 'The National Impact of European Union Regulatory Policy: Three Europeanisation Mechanisms', European Journal of Political Research, 41:2, 255-280. Ladrech, R. (2002), 'Europeanisation and Political Parties: Towards a Framework for Analysis', Party Politics, 8:4, 389-403. Ladrech, R. (1994), 'Europeanisation of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France', Journal of Common Market Studies, 32:1, 69-88. Lavenex, S. (2001), 'The Europeanisation of Refugee Policies: Normative Challenges and Institutional Legacies,' Journal of Common Market Studies, 39:5, 851-974. Mair, P. (2000), 'The Limited Impact of Europe on National Party Systems', West European Politics, 23:4, 27-51. March, J. and J. Olsen (1998), 'The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders.' International Organisation, 52:4, 943-969. March, J. and J. Olsen (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organization Basis of Politics, New York, The Free Press. Milward, A. S. (1994), The European Rescue of the Nation-State, London, Routledge.

Moravcsik, A. (1993), 'Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach', Journal of Common Market Studies, 31:4, 473-524. Moravcsik, A. (1994), 'Why the European Community Strengthens the State: Domestic Politics and International Cooperation', Center for European Studies Working Paper Series, Harvard University, No. 52. Moravcsik, A. (1998), The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press. Olsen, J. (2002), 'The Many Faces of Europeanization', Journal of Common Market Studies, 40:5, 921-952. Pierson, P. (1996), 'The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis', Comparative Political Studies, 29:2, 123-163. Putnam, R. (1988), 'Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-level Games', International Organisation, 42:3, 427-460. Radaelli, C. (2003), 'The Europeanization of Public Policy' in K. Featherstone and C.M. Radaelli, (eds), The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1994), 'The Hollowing Out of the State', Political Quarterly, 65, 138151. Risse, T., M. Green Cowles and J. Caporaso (2001), 'Europeanisation and Domestic Change: Introduction' in M. Green Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse (eds), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Sbragia, A. (2001), Italy Pays for Europe: Political Leadership, Political Choice, and Institutional Adaptation, in M. Green Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse (eds), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Scharpf, F. (1999), Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Soysal, Y.N. (1994), Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Stone Sweet, A. and W. Sandholtz (1997), 'European Integration and Supranational Governance', Journal of European Public Policy, 4:3, 297-317. Stone Sweet, A., N. Fligstein and W. Sandholtz (2001), 'The Institutionalization of European Space' in A. Stone Sweet, W. Sandholtz and N. Fligstein (eds), The Institutionalization of Europe, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Vink, M. (2001), 'The Limited Europeanisation of Domestic Citizenship Policy:

Evidence from the Netherlands', Journal of Common Market Studies, 39:5, 875-896.

notes
1. An earlier draft of this paper was presented to the Second Young ECPR Network on Europeanisation Research Meeting on Europeanisation at Bocconi University, Milan, Italy (November 2002). I would especially like to thank Paolo Graziano, Martin Rhodes and Luca Verzichelli for their comments. 2. See, for example, the Second ECPR Conference in Marburg (18-21 September 2003) where four symposia and one complete section with five panels were organised around the theme of Europeanisation. The ECPR has also recently established the Young ECPR Network on Europeanisation (YEN), see http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/standinggroups/yen/index.htm. 3. Somewhat surprisingly, Hall and Taylor (1996) see the two approaches as variants of historical institutionalism. This has been noted by, among others, Hay and Wincott (1998: 952) who remark: 'Although offered as a way of differentiating between positions within historical institutionalism, the distinction between calculus and cultural approaches is precisely that between rational choice and sociological institutionalisms' (Hay and Wincott, 1998: 952).