4.2 New directions

In view of the particular findings in the context of eastern enlargement, two directions for further research stand out: the study of the Europeanisation of new members after accession and the use of conditionality beyond accession candidates.

4.2.1 Compliance after accession

Concerns about the ability of the central and eastern European candidates to apply the acquis after accession has been one key reservation against enlargement and the main motive behind the pervasive pressures for strict and early pre-accession alignment underpinned by conditionality.

The finding that conditionality – the external incentive of membership – was the key mechanism that led to the adoption of EU rules by the candidates makes the question of post-accession compliance even more salient (Dimitrova and Steunenberg 2004 : 180; Scherpereel 2006 : 143; Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2004 : 677-679; Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2005a : 226-227): how will the changes in the incentive structure affect behaviour? Will the EU’s compliance system compensate for the absence of conditional incentives? Will the success of conditionality in generating change (albeit often still limited to formal change) lead to sustainable compliance – application and enforcement – after accession? What will happen in areas of political conditionality where the powers of EU institutions vis-à-vis full members are limited?

The question of post-accession, or post-conditionality, compliance in the new member states brings the analysis closer to the established literature on EU compliance (see Treib 2006 ). As opposed to pre-accession adjustment, which often remained limited to formal rule adoption, i.e. legal transposition, the focus in post-accession compliance shifts to implementation and enforcement. It also shifts attention more firmly to the role of ordinary courts in the application of EU law Kühn 2005 ). Studies in this area are still at preliminary stages. Quantitative data on transposition and infringements suggests that concerns about an ‘eastern problem’ are vastly exaggerated and that the new members perform much better than most of the older member states (Sedelmeier 2006 ). However, emerging qualitative research cautions that the good legislative record may not be matched with regard to application on the ground (Falkner and Treib 2006 ).

4.2.2 Conditionality beyond EU candidacy

Another finding of the analysis of applicant state Europeanisation is particularly relevant for the study of the EU’s use of conditionality and softer instruments of influence in countries that do not have a credible accession perspective. A key factor that determined the effectiveness of conditionality is a credible accession perspective. In other words, the most sizeable reward and incentive that the EU can offer is membership. What does this mean for the ability of the EU to influence domestic politics in non-member states for which membership is explicitly ruled out, at least for the foreseeable future? This is a key question for studies of ‘Europeanisation beyond the EU’ (see forthcoming Living Review on ’EU governance beyond the European Union’).