Conclusions

6 Conclusions

In the introductory sections of the review, I proposed to use the literature on Europeanization in the candidate states for membership as a benchmark for the analysis of “Europeanization beyond Europe”. In general, the findings reported here suggest that the dividing line between the candidate states for EU membership and other third countries also constitutes a categorical difference for the analysis of Europeanization effects.

First, whereas in the case of “quasi-members” and candidate countries, the acquis communautaire is at the core of Europeanization, the goals and contents of Europeanization beyond Europe, at least those analyzed in most of the literature, are of a more general character. Whereas “regionalism” may still count as an EU-specific goal, which – if effectively pursued – would result in a distinctive “Europeanization” beyond Europe, other core goals such as stability and security or democracy and human rights are clearly less related to the EU’s acquis and less specific to the external relations of the EU.

Second, whereas positive political conditionality has become a general feature of EU relations with third countries in the 1990s, it has been used less consistently than in EU relations with potential future member states. Moreover, other instruments for promoting EU core values and norms – such as domestic empowerment of civil society or socialization through transgovernmental cooperation – while described as unique EU strategies, do not appear to have been consistent and effective substitutes for political accession conditionality.

Third, the Europeanizing impact of these strategies has been weak beyond the group of credible candidates for EU membership. The causes for the weak impact are probably manifold: low incentives and low consistency of policy on the part of the EU and serious domestic obstacles to Europeanization on the part of third countries. In sum, membership or the prospect of membership appears to be a crucial condition of Europeanization. With regard to its specific normative and regulatory content, its instruments and its impact, Europeanization beyond Europe is substantially weaker than Europeanization in Europe. This need not be the last word on the issue, though.

1) Whereas the literature conveys the picture that Europeanization efforts beyond Europe are inconsistent and ineffective overall, this does not mean that there are no cases of consistent policy and effective impact. Searching for such cases and studying their conditions in comparison with similar cases may generate better knowledge on the differential effects and the conditions of Europeanization in non-candidate countries. In general, we would need carefully designed and theory-guided comparative studies, which directly address and assess the causality question between EU policies and domestic change.

2) Whereas the general Europeanization literature focuses very much on policies, policy-making processes and administrative structures, the literature reviewed here was about polity: regional integration and constitutional structure. Maybe this is the wrong place to look for Europeanization effects beyond Europe. Studies mirroring the general focus on policy and politics (related to policy-making) might find a stronger impact of “Europe” on third countries.

Such a research agenda would require, however, that the literature on EU external policies make “Europeanization” an explicit focus of its work, which it has not done so far. This includes importing theories and hypotheses as well as mechanisms and conditions from the general Europeanization literature. It would also require coping with the problems of establishing causality that haunt the study of Europeanization in general. Finally, since Europeanization ultimately needs to be studied in the target countries, analyzing “Europeanization beyond Europe” requires researchers to go “beyond Europe” as well, acquire local expertise, and do research far away from Brussels.