Europeanization of politics and society: Domestic change and the question of a European Social Model

Résumé du document

Europeanization is an elusive concept because of the variety of meanings it refers to. Scholars such as Featherstone (2003, 6-12) often distinguish several usages according to various outcomes of European change, for instance the emergence of new forms of governance or the process of national adaptation in terms of polity and policies. But if they agree more or less on the faces of Europeanization, its definition remains to large extent a matter of contention and depends on the aspect of Europe the scholars seek to emphasize and analyze.

Since the beginning of the 50's, Europe can be seen as an historical process of institution building and policy making that has continuously produced new patterns of interactions between the different actors and structures. As pointed out in the literature (Harmsen 2000; Risse, Cowles and Caporasso 2001; Featherstone 2003; Radaelli 2003) EU membership and its obligations may result in institutional and policy domestic adaptations in specific areas, that is to say an Europeanization process. Here the study wants to focus on the question of a European Social Model developed by Wincott (2003). Whereas Europe used to focus mainly on economic arrangements, policies and regulation frames, the past twenty years have increasingly seen the emergence of social expectations. In reaction to the neo-liberalism wave at the beginning of the 80's that shaped, if not influenced, national policies and European construction, the idea of reinforcing the social dimension of Europe started to gain a ready audience, witness the stand of J.Delors, president of the EU commission from 1985 to 1995 (Wincott 2003, 287). Hence the guiding question will be: How does the idea of a European Social Model have influenced the institutions and policies of the State members? This implies to explore, as an Europeanization process, the emergence of a European "pattern of economic and social regulation" (Wincott 2003, 281) and the direction of change the latter is following over time.

Extraits

[...] Is it only a question of misfit - and thus of social and economic cost? The «goodness of fit» is actually a matter of compliance: the more the subnational and national beliefs, policies and institutions do not fit in with E.U obligations, the more the pressure for domestic adaptation is important (Radaelli 2003, 14-15) and the more it triggers two mechanisms, the logic of consequentialism - rational choices confronted with opportunities and constraints - and the logic of appropriatness socialization process that shapes beliefs and identities (Borzel and Risse 2003, 58-75). [...]

[...] In this respect the EU authorities tried to decrease the negative effects of Europeanization processes, for instance through the creation of funds such as the European Social Funds. Launched in 1957 with the treaty of Rome, the latter was dedicated to fund domestic projects of adaptation conformed to the Commission objectives; it was a means to have a steering impact on national policies. Beyond that kind of strategy, one can say that the position of a powerful Commission - behind the say of its president Jacques Delors - could have also succeed in improving the situation, providing more authority to the EU social project and making the adaptations more acceptable for the member states. [...]

[...] The opposition between the Anglo-Saxon model and the French one in terms of labour market flexibility and social protection shows how competing are the national model. Hence instead of being just continuously subjected to pressures of adaptation, the States members also try to influence the way Europeanization goes - through the European Union Councils (national ministries and presidents), the role of expert groups and the growing role of interest groups. Not very far from Radaelli (2003, 50-52) when he criticizes the traditional top-down centric analysis in the name of bottom- up researches, Borzel (2001 quoted by Radaelli 2003, 34) develops the idea that Europeanization is a «two way process» that can be built, if not strongly influenced, by national elements. [...]

[...] With regard to this critic, the definition of Radaelli (2003, 17) is more relevant. He defines Europeanization as «processes of construction, diffusion and institutionalization of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms [ shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process and then incorporated in the logic of national and subnational discourse, political structures and public policies». This definition insists on the different interactions between agency and structure at different levels, subnational, national and European, while remaining substantial. [...]

[...] The E.U Commission adopts minimal regulations and open methods of coordination to promote and enhance social principles and social requirements but economic competitiveness remains the prevailing logic. Nowadays the influence of the Anglo-Saxon model rises at the expense of the French and the German system and permeates the dynamic of the EU (Majone 1996 quoted by Wincott 2003, 281-287) Basically Europeanization is above all the result of «two ways processes» and the interests and competing preferences of members states still determine the polity and policy direction of the EU. [...]