When Does the EU Make a Difference?
Conditionality and the Accession Process in
Central and Eastern Europe
Tim Haughton
University of Birmingham
A number of recent studies examining the accession of states from Central and Eastern Europe into the
European Union have provided a much more sophisticated understanding of when,why and how the EU
shaped, directed and occasionally determined change in the region since 1989.Although acknowledging
the EU was at times a motor of change, its power was limited to particular points in the accession process
and varied significantly across policy areas. Even in cases such as Slovakia, often used to demonstrate the
power of EU conditionality, the influence of the EU on domestic actors and policy change has been
exaggerated.The EU’s ‘transformative power’ is at its greatest when deciding to open accession negotiations,
a finding which has implications for the EU’s ability to enact change in Croatia and Turkey.
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) has witnessed enormous changes in the past
decade and a half. In addition to the fall of the communist regimes and the triple
transition of democratization,marketization and state-building (Offe,1991),eight
countries from the region joined the European Union (EU) on 1 May 2004,with
two more scheduled to join in 2007/8.To what extent, however, can we see the
European Union as a key driver of change in the region since 1989? Thanks to
a number of recent studies including books by Grabbe (2006), Hughes et al.
(2004), Jacoby (2004), Kelley (2006), Pridham (2005) and Vachudova (2005) and
a volume edited by Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier (2005),we now have a much
more sophisticated understanding of when,why and how the EU shaped,directed
and occasionally determined change in CEE.Although this article acknowledges
that the EU ensured some specific changes, building on some of the key
arguments made in these accounts and an example of a country (Slovakia) often
thought to demonstrate the impact of EU conditionality, it maintains that the
EU’s ‘transformative power’ (Grabbe, 2006) was limited.
A large slice of the literature exploring change in CEE has employed the concept
of Europeanization (e.g. Grabbe, 2001; Hughes et al., 2004; Schimmelfennig and
Sedelmeier,2005).Moreover,the term has become flavour of the month for many
scholars writing on European politics more broadly,often to very good effect (e.g.
Bulmer and Lequesne, 2005), although even scholars who employ the term
recognize that it remains undeveloped (e.g. Bache and Jordan, 2006). Indeed,
Europeanization has ‘many faces’, having been used by different scholars in very
different ways, referring, for example, to the internalizing of European values and
policy paradigms at the domestic level, or a process by which domestic policy
POLITICAL STUDIES REVIEW: 2007 VOL 5, 233–246
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
areas become increasingly subject to European policy-making (Olsen, 2002). At
times the term is employed to describe developments, on other occasions to
explain the causal mechanisms of change, and elsewhere the descriptive and
explanatory are blended together.
In terms of explaining changes brought about by the EU in applicant states,Helen
Wallace (2000) introduced a distinction between ‘Europeanization’ and ‘EUization’
(change driven by the demands of EU membership).With a few exceptions
(e.g. Malová and Haughton, 2002), the latter (admittedly rather inelegant)
concept was not taken up by scholars despite the obvious advantages of disentangling
the broader process of replication of what are deemed to be European
norms from the narrower process of changes brought about explicitly by the
demands of EU membership. Indeed, with the notable exception of
Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier (2005), the best accounts of the impact of the
EU on CEE marginalize use of the term ‘Europeanization’, preferring instead to
introduce new terminology into the political science lexicon. Moreover, the very
label ‘Europeanization’ harbours a slice of value-laden superiority when applied
to CEE, implying that territories where such changes or phenomena have not
occurred are somehow less or non-European.This article, therefore, eschews use
of the term Europeanization, preferring instead to examine the impact of
EU-ization on CEE through an examination of the contributions mentioned
above, especially ‘passive’ and ‘active leverage’ (Vachudova, 2005).
Attempting to assess the causal role of the EU in shaping domestic developments
raises significant methodological problems (Haverland, 2006). Unlike our colleagues
from chemistry, as political scientists we are not afforded the luxury to
isolate and remove individual ingredients and then rerun experiments to see if the
results change.We cannot remove the EU from the equation and rerun the history
of CEE from 1989 to prove or disprove causality. Nonetheless, we can attempt to
disentangle the impact of different variables by studying a variety of countries and
policy areas,and pose the counterfactual as to what would have happened had the
EU not existed.
Recent contributions to the debate vary in their focus and geographical spread.
Whereas, for instance, Milada Anna Vachudova’s (2005) monograph provides an
analysis of developments in six CEE states, incorporating an account of macropolitical
trajectories, the behaviour of political actors and policy change, Wade
Jacoby’s (2004) and Judith Kelley’s (2006) books have a narrower focus. The
former is largely an account of policy emulation in the Czech Republic and
Hungary, the latter an examination of minority policy. Common to many of the
accounts, especially Frank Schimmelfennig and Ulrich Sedelmeier’s (2005),
Vachudova’s and Kelley’s, is a recognition that the EU’s impact varied significantly
over time, thanks in no small part to the incentives on offer.
Indeed, the process of joining the EU can be disaggregated into three stages:
pre-accession, the accession negotiations and, sandwiched between these two,
234 TIM HAUGHTON
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
the decision phase when the EU decides whether to open accession negotiations
or not. I argue the EU’s transformative power varied across these phases, being at
its strongest during the decision phase of whether or not to open accession
negotiations. Secondly, the EU’s power varied across issue areas.While in some
areas, such as the single market, the EU demonstrated its power to transform, in
others, such as minority protection, the EU’s power was much more limited,
especially in policy implementation.
Assessing the EU’s ‘Transformative Power’
The ‘transformative power’ of the European Union (and in its previous incarnation
the European Community)1
rests largely on what Vachudova (2005) terms its
‘active’and‘passive leverage’.Passive leverage refers to the attraction or magnetism
of EU membership, especially the expected economic benefits of joining the
club. Active leverage, in contrast, refers to the criteria for membership, starting
with those laid down at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993. These
include the requirement for states to be democratic, to function according to the
rule of law and to respect minorities, while possessing a functioning market
economy able to withstand the competitive pressures of membership of the single
market and having the ability to take on the obligations of membership including
adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.These rather
broad conditions were fleshed out at the Madrid European Council in 1995 and
in the numerous Commission reports charting the aspirant states’ progress (or lack
thereof).States wishing to join the EU have to meet the Copenhagen criteria and
then transpose the EU’s body of law (acquis) into their domestic law with no
opt-outs allowed.
At first glance, therefore, the EU seems extremely powerful. Not only did it act
as a powerful magnet in the early post-communist years, it then also acted as a
gatekeeper at a number of points on the path to EU membership, allowing only
those it deemed to have performed the required tasks through the gates. Moreover,
there was a clear power asymmetry during the process of accession, when
the accession states of CEE were expected to transpose into domestic law the
80,000 pages of the acquis to a standard acceptable to the Commission and
European Council (a condition which was not necessarily met by the existing
member states). Indeed, the term ‘accession negotiations’ is in many respects a
misnomer, as there was very little left open to negotiation beyond the odd
temporary transitional arrangement (derogation). Nonetheless, this article argues
that the EU’s power was limited to particular points in the accession process and
varied significantly across policy areas.
When Does the EU Make a Difference? The Temporal
Dimension
What political and economic reforms would have been undertaken in the
countries of CEE if the EU had not existed? Would we still have seen the
WHEN DOES THE EU MAKE A DIFFERENCE? 235
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
democratization and marketization that we witnessed in CEE? Although ‘Return
to Europe’ was a prominent clarion call during the heady days of the 1989
revolutions and their aftermath, the appeal was not specifically about joining the
European Community. Rather it was more a wish to replicate the democratic
political system and economic success of Western Europe and the US allied to a
desire to distance the countries from their past and distinguish them from their
Eastern neighbours, notably Russia. Also, appealing to Western political and
economic values at that time had a security function.The appeal gave the states
of CEE, especially the Baltic States, more power in ensuring they would be
protected from a Soviet military intervention.2
Moreover, the key motivation of the trail-blazing marketizers in the early 1990s
in CEE such as Leszek Balcerowicz in Poland,Václav Klaus in Czechoslovakia/
Czech Republic and Mart Laar in Estonia were their ideological beliefs and wish
to replicate certain Western economic models, rather than a more specific desire
to prepare for membership of the European club (Appel, 2005; Blazyca, 2003). It
seems as if the magnetism to replicate Western Europe’s political and economic
model and the ideological convictions of the first post-communist governments
would have ensured the broad thrust of economic and political reform in these
countries even if the EC/EU had been absent. Elsewhere in the region, the
magnetism of the Western economic model was far weaker. In countries such as
Romania the ideological convictions of politicians combined with clientelism to
produce limited or skewed reforms which benefited the ruling elite and their
cronies (Gallagher, 2005; Vachudova, 2005).The EU’s passive leverage had little
effect here either.
Nonetheless, if we fast-forward to 2006, all the CEE states which are already
member states (or scheduled to be in 2007/8) had become consolidated
democracies.Indeed,one of the real‘dividends’of the accession process lies in the
fact that EU membership makes democratization and marketization in Central
and Eastern Europe practically irreversible (Sadurski, 2004).The EU, therefore, is
important as an entrenchment actor anchoring democracy and the market
economy. Nevertheless, the link between the EU and the consolidation of
democracy and marketization provokes three further thoughts. Firstly, was the
EU’s transformative power effective in states which did not initially embark on
radical political and economic reform? As I will argue later, the EU only played
a marginal role in reversing Slovakia’s illiberal turn. Secondly, and linked in with
the salience of domestic political factors, the reform paths of countries such as
Poland and Hungary were assured thanks to the transmogrification of their
communist parties into modern social democratic parties (Gryzmała-Busse,
2002).They drew inspiration from Western Europe, not from the EU per se, but
from left-leaning politicians and parties in the member states (Paterson and
Sloam, 2005).Thirdly, such time-consuming tasks as incorporating 80,000 pages
of EU law into domestic law prompted CEE states to institute fast-tracking
mechanisms which bypassed the normal procedures of democratic deliberation
236 TIM HAUGHTON
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
process, provoking the question of whether EU demands were actually harming
rather than helping democratic consolidation (Grabbe, 2001; Malová and
Haughton, 2002, pp. 110–2).
If the EU did not make a decisive difference during the immediate postcommunist
period, what about the remainder of the pre-accession period? From
1989 to 1993 the most striking aspect of the evolving relationship between the
EC/EU and the states of CEE was the reluctance of the EC/EU to offer
membership. Initially the EC was just interested in offering aid through the
PHARE programme,3
not least because the EC was itself preoccupied with
preparations for what was to become the Maastricht Treaty.The states of CEE,
however, were not content and began pressing for something much more
substantial. The EC responded with the proposal of Association (or Europe)
Agreements offering the removal of commercial and economic barriers and the
prospect of a free trade area in return for the CEE states introducing legislation
in areas such as competition (state aid) and the protection of property rights that
would be compatible with EC rules.
The states of CEE, however, were not content with just the Europe Agreements.
Like the eponymous hero in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, they asked for more.
Invoking the EC’s own rhetoric of shared European values and norms enshrined
in the founding treaties, these new European liberal democratic states challenged
the member states either to set out clear guidelines for accession or justify the
exclusion of a large part of the continent.As Schimmelfennig (2003) argues in his
highly persuasive account,4
the EC was caught in this rhetorical trap and
responded by laying out the criteria for beginning accession negotiations at the
Copenhagen European Council in June 1993.The decision to map out the route
to membership was not just provoked by the CEE countries expressing their
desire to join the club – broader geopolitical concerns were also at play. The
bloody events in the former Yugoslavia, for example, highlighted the potential
instability of the rest of the region. Indeed, this leads us towards the paradoxical
conclusion that during this period we witnessed not the EU’s transformative
power, but in terms of setting the enlargement agenda, conversely the CEE’s
power to transform the EC/EU.
In contrast to the pre-accession period, the EU was much more powerful
during the decision phase. The ability to decide whether to open accession
negotiations or not appears to be a powerful weapon in the EU’s armoury.
Indeed, the need to ensure their country meets the Copenhagen criteria provided
a clear ‘external incentive’ for change in aspirant member states (Schimmelfennig
and Sedelmeier, 2005). Once the formal applications for membership
from the CEE states had begun to be submitted from March 1994, the EU’s
active leverage began to take effect.What mattered, however, was the credibility
of the EU’s offer of membership. Judgment was passed on the former communist
states of CEE at the Luxembourg European Council in 1997. Five states
from the region (Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and the Czech Republic)
WHEN DOES THE EU MAKE A DIFFERENCE? 237
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
were invited to begin accession negotiations, but five others (Bulgaria, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia) were considered to have made insufficient
progress. This willingness to open the negotiation doors to those deemed to
have met the criteria, therefore, seemed to demonstrate that the EU’s offer of
membership was genuine, providing a clear signal for those left out that by
enacting the required changes the much sought-after reward could be achieved.
The decision to exclude the second group of countries thereby ‘enhanced the
credibility’ of the EU’s conditionality (Schimmelfennig et al., 2005, p. 49).Two
years later these countries were considered to have made significant progress in
meeting the criteria and were invited to start accession negotiations at the
Helsinki European Council in December 1999.
Latvia provides an example of the power of external incentives in the key decision
phase of whether to open accession negotiations or not. The Commission’s
negative avis (opinion) of the country’s progress and the decision to open
negotiations with Estonia in 1997‘had a shock effect’on Latvia,stimulating a new
action plan and institutional change (Pridham, 2005, p. 106). Moreover, EU
pressure helped bring about changes even in sensitive policy areas such as those
affecting minorities.The proposed 1998 Latvian State Language law, for example,
which required even private businesses and enterprises to conduct their activities
in Latvian,was heavily criticized by the EU and other international bodies such as
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Finns, who held
the EU presidency in the second half of 1999, warned Latvia that its chances of
being invited to begin accession negotiations at the forthcoming summit could be
jeopardized if the law came into force.EU pressure was important,but significantly
it required the intervention of a domestic political actor to enforce change. It was
the new Latvian president Vaira Vike-Freiberga’s refusal to sign the law and her
request to revise it to conform to EU legislation which ensured Latvia passed an
amended law just days before the December 1999 European Council.
Even during the decision phase, however, the EU’s power was limited. The
decision to open accession negotiations with Romania and Bulgaria appears to
have been driven as much by broader geo-strategic concerns as by the countries’
progress in meeting the criteria. As David Phinnemore (2005) has argued, the
Commission’s regular report of 1999 maintained that Romania was still neither
a functioning market economy nor likely to be able to compete with the
competitive pressures of membership of the internal market; nevertheless
Romania was invited to begin negotiations. Both Romania and Bulgaria were
rewarded for their stance in the Kosovo conflict. There was a general feeling
among EU leaders that the countries’ backing of the NATO-led operation and
the economic consequences of the embargo on oil sales to Serbia merited a
reward (Grabbe, 2006; Phinnemore, 2005). Moreover, with Turkey being granted
candidate status,and the development of the Stabilization and Association Process
for the Western Balkans, there was pressure on the EU to upgrade relations with
Bulgaria and Romania (Phinnemore, 2005).
238 TIM HAUGHTON
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
Once the process of accession began,the need to direct and manage the accession
process prompted institutional change and innovation.The Czech Republic, for
instance, provides a clear illustration of the EU’s impact on institution-building.
The Czechs created a raft of new institutions including a government Council for
Integration, a subordinate working committee of the Council and 22 separate
working groups with responsibility for specific policy areas (Jacoby, 2004, pp.
44–5).Nonetheless,administrative reform in CEE during the accession phase was
often slow and reluctant. Slovenia, for example, only made the required changes
in 2002. Moreover, changes to political appointments in the 1998 law in Poland
actually went against the EU’s preferences, in part because the ‘credibility of a
potential threat of exclusion was quite low’ (Dimitrova, 2005, p. 86), a point to
which I will return below.
When Does the EU Make a Difference? Policy Change and
Implementation
The impact of the EU in terms of policy was at times decisive, especially, but
not exclusively, just before decisions were taken on the opening of accession
negotiations. At all stages, however, policies were enacted which went against
mainstream domestic political preferences. Chapter 24 of the acquis, for example,
which dealt with cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, forced the
accession states to impose visa restrictions on bordering states such as Ukraine
(e.g. Duleba, 2005; Grabbe, 2006). Equally, criticism of the Czech judicial system
in the Commission’s 1999 progress report provoked the Zeman government to
adopt a reform package (Pridham, 2005, p. 135). Sometimes these measures even
involved rowing back on initial liberalization. Estonia, for instance, was forced to
introduce 10,794 new tariffs and adopt a number of non-tariff barriers, such as
quotas, subsidies and anti-dumping duties to comply with the acquis (Tupy, 2003,
p. 2).
Given the Copenhagen criteria and the politically sensitive position of ethnic
minorities in many CEE states, minority policy was closely monitored (Kelley,
2006; Rechel, 2005). Although some changes in the early 1990s owed more to
pressure from the Council of Europe (Kelley,2006),there are some clear examples
of EU pressure making a difference. Estonia, for example, was required to amend
citizenship laws to grant automatic citizenship to all children born to non-citizen
parents in Estonia after February 1992. Equally, a 1993 law providing for the
complete transition to Estonian-language instruction in schools by 2000 was
amended to allow ethnic Russians to continue being taught indefinitely in their
own mother tongue (Smith, 2003). Moreover, the Commission’s Agenda 2000
document (agreed at the Berlin European Council in March 1999) provoked
‘dramatic progress’ in minority policy in the Baltic States (Gelazis, 2003, p. 66). In
Latvia, a new citizenship law was adopted removing many of the restrictions on
ethnic Russians, including the opening up of the naturalization process to all
resident non-citizens, and the provision that children born in Latvia to stateless
WHEN DOES THE EU MAKE A DIFFERENCE? 239
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
parents could be granted citizenship. Restrictions on non-nationals in several
areas of employment such as airline staff, firefighters and veterinary pharmacists
were removed (Gelazis, 2003, p. 67). Nonetheless, in the Estonian case, reports of
progress ‘were coupled with further criticisms and improvement requirements’
(Gelazis, 2003, p. 67).
The substantive progress made by Latvia in the area of minority policy in 1999,
in contrast to its northern neighbour, highlights the argument raised above about
the beginning of accession negotiations.Estonia had begun accession negotiations
so the threat of exclusion was far weaker, especially in light of the progress made
in other policy areas. In addition, throughout CEE there was a noticeable gap
between the declared policies and implementation. Minority policy may have
changed de jure, but frequently not de facto. Maltreatment of ethnic Roma, for
instance, was a common and frequent theme of EU reports, but while much
formal discrimination towards the Roma was largely removed, widespread prejudice
and discrimination on the ground remained (Rechel, 2005; Vermeersch,
2002). Indeed, in off-the-record remarks Commission officials lamented the
difficulty of maintaining pressure on accession states to continue with reforms in
many policy areas,especially when almost all of the negotiating chapters had been
closed.
The impact of the EU in bringing about policy change was mitigated or bolstered
by several factors. Firstly, it was affected by whether EU institutions and its
member states were singing in unison, harmony or discordantly.Where accession
states received mixed signals they tended to opt for the most domestically
palatable. Secondly, the nature of the acquis mattered (Hughes et al., 2004). In
some fields such as health care and consumer protection the EU acquis density was
low, providing much more scope for choosing or ignoring prevailing Western
models ( Jacoby, 2004, p. 16).What also mattered was not just the density of the
acquis, but its clarity and degree of implementation in existing member states.
Above all, what mattered was the salience the EU ascribed to a particular policy.
Although the Justice and Home Affairs chapter of the acquis was in places rather
opaque and was undergoing rapid changes, officials from the accession states
‘knew it was a potential veto-point in negotiations’, so transposition of the acquis
and conformity to EU standards was critically important (Grabbe, 2006, p. 204).
In contrast, thanks in part to the poor record of some of the existing member
states in minority policy, provided the right language was used by the accession
state, lack of policy improvement was highly unlikely to be a veto-point.
When Does the EU Make a Difference? The Case of Slovakia
The impact of the EU on Slovakia has generated much scholarly interest (e.g.
Deegan Krause,2003;Harris,2004;Pridham,2002).Indeed textbooks often argue
that the impact of conditionality ‘may be clearly seen in the case of Slovakia’ (e.g.
Glenn, 2003, p. 219).The attention stems from the EU’s decision not to invite
240 TIM HAUGHTON
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
Slovakia to begin accession negotiations at the Luxembourg European Council in
1997 due to a failure to meet the political criterion promulgated at Copenhagen
four years earlier (Henderson, 1999). Following the 1998 parliamentary elections
and the removal of the government led byVladimír Mecˇiar from power,however,
at the Luxembourg European Council in 1999 Slovakia was invited to begin
accession negotiations.The country made great strides over the following three
years.An examination of this period casts an interesting light on the influence of
the EU.
Firstly, the relationship between the EU and potential members is, as Vachudova
(2005,p.109) argues,one of‘asymmetric interdependence’in which the EU‘does
not coerce candidates into meeting the membership requirements’. Indeed,
Slovakia demonstrates that a sine qua non of change is a receptive domestic
political elite willing to make the necessary sacrifices.Despite the frequent threats
warning of exclusion from the first wave of CEE states to start accession
negotiations and the rare and diplomatically significant decision by the EU and
the USA to issue démarches (strong diplomatic notes) deploring the state of
democracy in Slovakia,5
the impact of such measures on the 1994–8 government’s
policy was minimal. Even when the European Council decided not to
invite Slovakia to begin accession negotiations at the Luxembourg summit, the
EU’s pressure had little effect on policy (Haughton, 2005).The active leverage of
the EU had only minimal impact on the policies of the government led by Prime
Minister Vladimír Mecˇiar, because compliance with the Copenhagen criteria
would have placed constraints on the policies and functioning of the administration
which Mecˇiar and his coalition allies were not prepared to accept, even
though they sought membership.The EU, for example, had criticized the campaign
waged by the government against one of the prime minister’s political
opponents, President Michal Kovácˇ. But in response to the ‘no’ issued at
Luxembourg, the campaign against the president and other opponents who were
blamed for sullying Slovakia’s name was merely intensified (Haughton, 2003). In
stark contrast, following the 1998 parliamentary elections, the new government
led by Mikuláš Dzurinda displayed great enthusiasm in placing EU entry at the
top of its agenda (Bilcˇík, 2002). It was desperate to catch up with its neighbours
who had already begun accession negotiations. At times Slovakia resembled ‘an
obedient dog faithfully following its master’s instructions’ (Malová and
Haughton, 2006, pp. 326–7).
It would be incorrect, however, to see the EU as instrumental in bringing about
the change of government in Slovakia in 1998. Although the EU’s snubbing of
Slovakia in 1997 was used in the 1998 election campaign, opponents of the
Mecˇiar-led coalition were driven primarily by a desire to remove Mecˇiar and his
allies from power and overcome the illiberal tendencies of the previous four years
(Fisher, 2006; Henderson, 2004).Where outside (not just EU) actors played a role
was in providing contacts that were ‘promoting learning about and adapting to
the substance of democratic liberalism, capitalism and minority rights protection’
WHEN DOES THE EU MAKE A DIFFERENCE? 241
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
(Vachudova, 2005, p. 178), but this reinforced rather than changed the policy
orientations of the incoming government.
Secondly, clear and unambiguous judgments requiring clear and measurable
change provoked action. In response to explicit criticism contained in the Commission’s
November 2000 regular report berating Slovakia for the insufficient
independence of the judiciary, the unsatisfactory state of the fight against corruption,
the generally poor state of institutional preparedness and overall administrative
capacity of Slovakia,on 23 February 2001 the Slovak parliament‘adopted
the most extensive amendment to the Slovak Constitution’ since independence
(Bilcˇík, 2002, p. 289).The amendment paved the way for reform of the judiciary,
clarified the status of international treaties, redefined the powers of the Constitutional
Court, provided for the creation of an ombudsman in the field of human
rights protection and ‘paved the way’ for a ‘broader reform of public administration’
(Bilcˇík, 2002, p. 289). In contrast, despite a raft of criticisms emanating from
Brussels regarding treatment of the Roma minority, the Dzurinda government’s
actions were largely limited to declarations and resolutions. Roma continued to
suffer discrimination and a lack of social inclusion (Vašecˇka, 2002).The EU was
much more effective in changing the language and content of policy than in
affecting policy implementation.
Thirdly, the importance of the opening of accession negotiations seems to bear
fruit in the Slovak case.The Dzurinda government was keen to open accession
negotiations as soon as possible. Not only were fast-tracking mechanisms in
parliament used almost exclusively during the government’s first year to get laws
on the statute book demonstrating Slovakia’s preparedness (Malová et al., 2005,
pp. 71–3), but key acts such as the Law on the Use of Minority Languages were
passed in July 1999, demonstrating that the new government had heeded the
criticisms of the previous government. Nevertheless, this law and the appointment
of a deputy prime minister for human rights and minority affairs were
driven more by domestic factors (compare Pridham, 2002), such as the inclusion
of the ethnic Hungarian party (the Party of the Hungarian Coalition, SMK) in
the government.Where external incentives may have had more of an impact was
in coalition cohesion. Joining the EU was the ‘focal point for cooperation’
keeping the ideologically broad-based 1998–2002 government together
(Vachudova, 2005, p. 178). SMK was on the verge of walking out of the
government in 2001, but external influence, in the form of politicians and
political parties with an interest in Slovakia and keen to ensure the country’s
accession was not jeopardized, seems to have been significant in persuading the
party to remain in the government (Malová et al., 2005, p. 44).
Lessons from the 2004 Enlargement
The European Union helped to bring about change in Central and Eastern
Europe in the decade and a half following the 1989 revolutions, but much of the
242 TIM HAUGHTON
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
broad thrust of democratization and marketization seen in the early 1990s would
have probably occurred in the absence of the EC/EU.Indeed,the variety of paths
taken by post-communist states suggests rather the importance of the motivations
of domestic political actors. From the mid-1990s onwards, however, the EU had
much more impact when CEE governments introduced policies which conformed
to the demands of the EU. Nonetheless, the EU’s ‘enormous potential
influence’ was ‘constrained by diffuseness and uncertainty’ (Grabbe, 2006, p. 3).
Where the EU’s requirements were clear and directly linked to a reward, the EU
made a difference (Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier, 2005), but often the requirements
were embodied in vague or unsettled sections of the acquis, where only
limited changed occurred.
The EU was at its most powerful when it was deciding whether or not to begin
accession negotiations with a particular state, because the demands laid down
by the EU were tied to a credible offer of membership. The decision at the
Luxembourg European Council in 1997 to begin accession negotiations with five
states from the region, while excluding the others, but stressing that the door was
not permanently closed, provided a major stimulus for change. But even here
domestic political actors receptive to the EU’s demands and enforcing the
requisite change were a necessary condition of conforming to the EU’s standards.
Moreover, once over the hurdle of beginning accession negotiations, with the
threat of exclusion less strong, states demonstrated recidivist tendencies or just
resistance and delay in implementing the required measures such as civil service
reform in the Czech Republic (Dimitrova, 2005). Some states such as Poland
demonstrated a particular stubbornness, driven in part by a belief that the
enlargement boat would not embark without them.
The behaviour of leading EU officials involved in the enlargement process has
been modified partly in light of the experience of the 2004 enlargement. Firstly,
a new mechanism, the postponement clause, which threatened to put back
Bulgarian and Romanian accession by up to 12 months, was introduced once
Bulgaria closed all the accession negotiations in June 2004.The purpose of the
mechanism was to provide an added incentive not to take the foot off the reform
accelerator and maintain momentum right up until entry.Although expected to
announce in May 2006 whether it would recommend the enactment of the
postponement clause, recognizing the power of uncertainty, the Commission
decided to delay its decision until the autumn, with some resultant discernible
improvements in the realm of Justice and Home Affairs. Enlargement Commissioner
Olli Rehn, however, continued to voice concerns, warning of different
penalties if more progress were not made.6
But even if there were ‘considerable
slippage’ by Bulgaria or Romania, the Treaty of Accession envisaged accession by
1 January 2008 ‘at the latest’ (Phinnemore, 2006, p. 19).
Secondly, aware of the power of the EU’s active leverage when deciding to open
accession negotiations, the EU took a tough line on Croatia in 2005, demanding
full cooperation with the InternationalWar CrimesTribunal inThe Hague before
WHEN DOES THE EU MAKE A DIFFERENCE? 243
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
accession negotiations could begin. The stance not only stimulated changes in
Croatia, but also sent a clear message to the rest of the Western Balkans, resulting
in a number of indicted war criminals from other formerYugoslav states going to
The Hague.The decision in 2005 to open negotiations with Croatia and Turkey,
however,meant the EU played its best‘transformative power’card.With accession
negotiations under way, how much further ‘transformative power’ will the EU be
able to exert? The experience of the 2004 enlargement suggests that much
depends on the clarity of demands, the tying of rewards to progress made and a
receptive domestic political elite. In both cases, but especially for Turkey, officials
from the EU and the member states would be well advised to bear in mind the
importance of the credibility of the Union’s willingness to absorb new members,
as pessimism about prospects for admission decreases the power of incentives.
(Accepted: 4 July 2006)
About the Author
Tim Haughton, Centre for Russian and East European Studies, European Research Institute, Birmingham
University, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; email: T.J.Haughton@bham.ac.uk
Notes
An early version of this article was presented in Bratislava in December 2005 as part of a project funded by the
Leverhulme Trust (F/00 094/AK). I am grateful to Nida Gelazis, Anand Menon, Michelle Pace, Bernd Rechel, Lara
Scarpitta and the Journal’s two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments. In addition, audiences at the
Dubrovnik Seminar on Divided Societies in April 2006 and the annual CREES conference in June 2006 provided
suggestions which proved very helpful when producing the final draft.
1 The European Union came into existence in November 1993 following the implementation of the Maastricht
Treaty.
2 I am grateful to Nida Gelazis for suggesting this point to me.
3 Poland and Hungary:Assistance for Economic Reconstruction.Initially restricted to the two named countries,after
the 1989 revolutions this was expanded to include other post communist states.
4 For alternative explanations of why the 2004 enlargement took place see, for example, Nugent (2004).
5 The EU issued démarches on 24 November 1994 and 25 October 1995.The US issued its démarche on 27 October
1995.
6 See, for example, Financial Times, 7 September 2006.
References
Appel, H. (2005) A New Capitalist Order: Privatization and Ideology in Russia and Eastern Europe. Pittsburgh PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bache, I. and Jordan, A. (eds) (2006) The Europeanization of British Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bilcˇík V. (2002) ‘Slovakia’s Integration to the European Union’, in G. Mesežnikov, M. Kollár and T. Nicholson
(eds), Slovakia 2001:A Global Report on the State of Society. Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, pp. 281–96.
Blazyca, G. (2003) ‘Managing Transition Economies’, in S. White, J. Batt and P.G. Lewis (eds) Developments in
Central and East European Politics 3. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 213–33.
Bulmer, S. and Lequesne, C. (eds) (2005) The Member States of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Deegan Krause, K. (2003) ‘The Ambivalent Influence of the European Union on Democratization in Slovakia’,
in P. Kubicek (ed.), The European Union and Reluctant Democratizers. London: Routledge, pp. 56–86.
244 TIM HAUGHTON
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
Dimitrova, A. (2005) ‘Europeanization and Civil Service Reform in Central and Eastern Europe’, in F.
Schimmelfennig and U. Sedelmeier (eds), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca NY:
Cornell University Press, pp. 71–90.
Duleba, A. (2005) ‘The Implications of SchengenVisa Policy for theVisegrad States:The Case of Slovakia’, in
K. Henderson (ed.), The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice In the Enlarged Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 65–88.
Fisher, S. (2006) Political Change in Post-communist Slovakia and Croatia: From Nationalist to Europeanist. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Gallagher, T. (2005) Theft of a Nation: Romania since Communism. London: Hurst & Company.
Gelazis, N. (2003) ‘The Effects of EU Conditionality on Citizenship Policies and the Protection of National
Minorities in the Baltic States’, in V. Pettai and J. Zielonka (eds), The Road to the European UnionVolume 2:
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 46–74.
Glenn, J. (2003) ‘EU Enlargement’, in M. Cini (ed.), European Union Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 211–28.
Grabbe, H. (2001) ‘How Does Europeanisation Affect CEE Governance? Conditionality, Diffusion and Diversity’,
Journal of European Public Policy, 8 (4), 1013–31.
Grabbe, H. (2006) The EU’s Transformative Power: Europeanization through Conditionality in Central and Eastern
Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Gryzmała-Busse, A. (2002) Redeeming the Communist Past:The Regeneration of Communist Parties in East Central
Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, E. (2004) ‘Europeanization of Slovakia’, Comparative European Politics, 2 (2), 185–211.
Haughton, T. (2003) ‘Facilitator and Impeder:The Institutional Framework of Politics during the Premiership
of Vladimír Mecˇiar’, Slavonic and East European Review, 81 (2), 267–90.
Haughton, T. (2005) Constraints and Opportunities of Leadership in Post-communist Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Haverland, M. (2006) ‘Does the EU Cause Domestic Developments? Improving Case Selection in Europeanization
Research’, West European Politics, 29 (1), 134–46.
Henderson, K. (1999) ‘Slovakia and the Democratic Criteria for EU Accession’, in K. Henderson (ed.), Back to
Europe: Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union. London: UCL Press, pp. 221–40.
Henderson,K. (2004)‘The Slovak Republic:Explaining Defects in Democracy’,Democratization,11 (5),133–55.
Hughes, J., Sasse, G. and Gordon, C. (2004) Europeanization and Regionalization in the EU’s Enlargement to Central
and Eastern Europe:The Myth of Conditionality. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Jacoby, W. (2004) The Enlargement of the European Union and NATO: Ordering from the Menu in Central Europe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelley, J. (2006) Ethnic Politics in Europe:The Power of Norms and Incentives. Princeton NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Malová, D. and Haughton, T. (2002) ‘Making Institutions in Central and Eastern Europe and the Impact of
Europe’, West European Politics, 24 (2), 101–20.
Malová,D. and Haughton,T. (2006)‘Challenge from the Pace-Setting Periphery:The Causes and Consequences
of Slovakia’s Stance on Further European Integration’, in W. Sadurski, J. Ziller and K. Zurek (eds), Après
Enlargement: Legal and Political Responses in Central and Eastern European States to the EU. Florence: Robert
Schuman Center, pp. 323–38.
Malová, D., Láštic, E., and Rybárˇ M. (2005) Slovensko ako nový cˇlenský štát Európskej únie: Výzva z periférie?
Bratislava: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Nugent, N. (ed.) (2004) European Union Enlargement. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Offe, C. (1991) ‘Capitalism by Democratic Design? Democratic Theory Facing the Triple Transition in East
Central Europe’, Social Research, 58 (4), 865–92.
Olsen, J. P. (2002) ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40 (5), 921–52.
Paterson, W. and Sloam, J. (2005) ‘Learning from the West: Policy Transfer and Political Parties’, Journal of
Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 21 (1), 33–47.
Phinnemore, D. (2005) ‘And We’d Like to Thank ... : Romania’s Integration into the European Union’. Paper
presented to UACES 34th
Annual Conference and 10th
Research conference, Zagreb, 5–7 September.
WHEN DOES THE EU MAKE A DIFFERENCE? 245
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)
Phinnemore,D. (2006)‘Beyond 25 –The Changing Face of EU Enlargement:Commitment,Conditionality and
the Constitutional Treaty’, Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 8 (1), 7–26.
Pridham, G. (2002) ‘The European Union’s Democratic Conditionality and Domestic Politics in Slovakia:The
Mecˇiar and Dzurinda Government Compared’, Europe-Asia Studies, 54 (2), 203–27.
Pridham, G. (2005) Designing Democracy: EU Enlargement and Regime Change in Post-Communist Europe. Basingstoke:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Rechel, B. (2005) Minority Rights in Post-communist Bulgaria. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Birmingham.
Sadurski,W. (2004)‘Accession’s Democracy Dividend:The Impact of EU Enlargement upon Democracy in the
New Member States of Central and Eastern Europe’, European Law Journal, 10 (4), 371–401.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2003) The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schimmelfennig,F. and Sedelmeier,U. (eds) (2005) The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe.Ithaca NY:
Cornell University Press.
Schimmelfennig, F., Engert, S. and Knobel, H. (2005) ‘The Impact of EU Conditionality’, in F. Schimmelfennig
and U. Sedelmeier (eds), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca NY: Cornell University
Press, pp. 29–50.
Smith, D. (2003) ‘Minority Rights, Multiculturalism and EU Enlargement: The Case of Estonia’, Journal of
Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 1.Available from: http://www.ecmi.de/jemie/download/Focus1-
2003_Smith.pdf [Accessed 20 February 2004]
Tupy, M. (2003) ‘EU Enlargement: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies for Central and Eastern European Countries’,
Policy Analysis, Cato Institute, no. 489.
Vachudova, M. (2005) Europe Undivided: Democracy, Leverage, and Integration after Communism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Vašecˇka, M. (2002) Cacˇipen pal o Roma: Súhrnná správa o Rómoch na Slovensku. Bratislava: Institute for Public
Affairs.
Vermeersch, P. (2002) ‘Ethnic mobilization and the political conditionality of European Union accession:The
case of the Roma in Slovakia’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28 (1), 83–101.
Wallace,H. (2000)‘The Domestication of Europe and the Limits to Globalisation’,unpublished paper presented
to IPSA Congress, Quebec, August.
246 TIM HAUGHTON
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2007, 5(2)