Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Boyka M. Stefanova - The European Union and Europe's New Regionalism - The Challenge of Enlargement, Neighborhood, and Globalization (2018) PDF
Boyka M. Stefanova - The European Union and Europe's New Regionalism - The Challenge of Enlargement, Neighborhood, and Globalization (2018) PDF
1973-1993
2004
2007
2013 2030?
Boyka M. Stefanova
The European Union and Europe’s New Regionalism
Boyka M. Stefanova
vii
viii PREFACE
1 Introduction 1
Index 221
ix
ABBREVIATIONS
AA Association Agreement
ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations
ASEM Asia-Europe Meeting
BIA Bilateral Investment Agreement (EU-China)
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and
Stabilization
CBC Cross-border Cooperation
CEECs Central and Eastern European Countries
CETA Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy
CoE Council of Europe
COR Committee of Regions
DCFTA Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement
DR Distributive Regionalism
EAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
EaP Eastern Partnership
EAR European Agency for Reconstruction
ECJ European Court of Justice
ECSC European Coal and Steel Community
EDC European Defense Community
EEA European Economic Area
EEC European Economic Community
EESC European Economic and Social Committee
EEU Eurasian Economic Union
EFTA European Free Trade Area
ENP European Neighbourhood Policy
xi
xii ABBREVIATIONS
EP European Parliament
EPAP European Partnership Action Plan
EPC European Political Cooperation
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESDP European Security and Defense Policy
ESF European Social Fund
EU European Union
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HA High Authority (of the ECSC)
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
ICG International Crisis Group
IFIs International financial institutions
IMF International Monetary Fund
IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession
IR Investment Regionalism
LI Liberal Intergovernmentalism
MEP Member of the European Parliament
MERCOSUR Mercado Común del Sur (Latin American Common Market)
MFN Most Favoured Nation
MP Member of Parliament
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
OBOR One Belt, One Road (New Silk Road project)
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
PCA Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
PTA Preferential Trade Agreement
RCEP Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership
RTA Regional Trade Agreement
SAA Stabilization and Association Agreement
SAP Stabilization and Association Process
SEA Single European Act
TAIEX Technical Assistance Information Exchange Unit
TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership
TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
U.S. United States
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNSC United Nations Security Council
WTO World Trade Organization
WWI World War I
WWII World War II
LIST OF FIGURES
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
xv
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The end of the Cold War brought about unprecedented changes in all
domains of international relations. The growth of regionalism may be
regarded as an exemplar of these changes. The number and variety of
regional trade agreements has grown exponentially: from 28 in 1992 to
192 in 2004 to 437 in 2017.1 At the same time, as much as states identify
the concentration of their transactions with certain geographic, territorially
defined clusters of trading partners, investment flows, and regional institu-
tions, value chains and multilateral forums have been globalized. The
trading strategies of both states and corporations are increasingly selective
and flexible, transcending classical territorial scales.
Against the background of cascading change2 in which political, eco-
nomic, and social realities are destroyed, transformed, or replaced, the
European continent—itself an arena of profound transformations—has
been preserved as a remarkable instance of continuity. Europe has not
ceased to be the world’s most significant project of regional integration
capturing micro-trends of regionalization into a macro-political model of
regionalism. Regional integration within the EU is regarded as the most
significant instance of regionalism in the international system, combining
the micro-level process of regionalization and the macro-political dynamics
of regionalism.3 Since the 1950s, through successive rounds of enlarge-
ment, the majority of European countries have become or aspired to
become members of the EU.4
Regional integration in Europe was born out of the destruction of World
War II (WWII). Its main objective was to prevent the recurrence of rivalry
The broader instability in the global system raises questions as to the ways
in which a regional project of “an ever closer union” may be pursued by
simultaneously opening up and protecting a regional bloc from the pres-
sures of globalization. This book proceeds from the premise that the EU’s
continued growth as a system of rules and values, its relationships with
potential members, neighbors, and regional contenders, and global inter-
actions are related. It argues that as a result of changes in the underlying
pattern of regional interdependencies and actors’ preferences, the sustain-
ability of the EU’s model of “ever-expanding” regionalism of the 1990s is
on the decline. The book demonstrates these declining trends on the
example of the EU enlargement and neighborhood policies and its global
interactions beyond conventional patterns of interregionalism.
This introduction situates the book within the long-term trajectories and
current issues that inform the continued evolution of European regionalism;
presents the rationale, objectives, and significance of the study; and lays out
the main themes, concepts, analytical framework, and content of the chap-
ters that follow. It situates the object of inquiry—new developments in
European regionalism—within the literature on the subject, identifying
gaps in the principal research frameworks and discourses, and presents an
argument in favor of a novel regionalist account of regional integration in
Europe. The chapter proceeds with an overview of the global importance of
the EU-centered model of European regionalism in the post-Cold War era.
The next section explores the early stages of post-Cold War EU regionalism
and traces the process through which it emerged as a construct defined by
progressive expansion and deep integration. The chapter then proceeds to
map out the research questions and strategy and provides a preview of the
chapters that follow.
borders. Beyond the EU, recent comparative regionalist studies with a focus
on Africa, the Middle East, and Mercosur include Allison (2015), Jentin
and Mikic (2016), Levine and Nagar (2016), and Richmond et al. (2016).
While the existing literature provides a multidimensional treatment of
regionalism, there is an opportunity to explore the impact that emerging
new forms of inter- and cross-regional cooperation have on European
regionalism in an integral study. The stalled EU enlargement policy, the
constraining geopolitical effects of the broader Eurasian system, and global
cross-regional trends have not been examined through a single lens. This
book examines such developments in terms of constraining geopolitical
shifts and the declining trade-creation capacity of geographic expansion.
Without claims to interdisciplinarity, regionalism lends itself to a more
complex investigation, one based on explicitly mobilized insights and
methods from political inquiry, social theory, political economy, institution-
alist economics, and economic theory. While prioritizing political analysis
through concepts of power, capabilities, institutions, and governance, the
region as a unit of analysis needs to remain open to insights drawn from
history, law, sociology, and economics. By exploring global shifts, geopo-
litical restructuring, and global reform, such an approach elucidates not only
genesis and outcomes (typical of comparative regionalism) but also trans-
formation and direction of change. In the EU’s case, the movement is from
introspection to externalization captured through relationships of
interdependence, cooperation, and competition.
Similarly, the comparative lens of interregionalism is inadequate to
address new less-discussed cases at the intersection of regionalism and
globalization. This book asks different research questions—focused on the
sustainability of regional models—and adopts a different approach to study-
ing regionalism. It is interested in the ways in which regionalism evolves and
transcends territorial clusters and institutional templates. The book dis-
cusses novel cases of emulation and interregionalism, such as Eurasian
regionalism embedded in the Eurasian Economic Union, TTIP, and the
One Belt, One Road initiative, shedding new light on the emulation dis-
course in regionalist studies and enriching the coverage of comparative
regionalism.
Furthermore, the book provides an integrated treatment of political
trends spanning the EU enlargement, neighborhood, and cross-regional
policies. Such a holistic view of processes taking place simultaneously at the
border and at the center of EU policymaking adds a useful resource for
theoretical and policy analysis. By drawing creatively on comparative
18 1 INTRODUCTION
that the EU’s enlargement policy is at risk and that the established model of
progressive enlargement has reached its limits.
Chapter 4, titled “The Geopolitics of European Regionalism: Compet-
ing European/Eurasian Perspectives,” begins by mapping out the relation-
ship between Europe’s EU-centered regionalism and its neighborhood with
a special focus on the ENP. By tracing recent dynamics pertaining to the
implementation of the ENP and its institutional extension, the EaP, the
chapter examines three cases representative of the geopolitical turn in
European regionalism: the Ukrainian crisis, the EU-Russia relationship,
and the meeting place of EU-centered regionalism and the rival regionalist
model of the Eurasian Economic Union. By tracing alternative processes of
region building through the institutions of regional integration in the post-
Soviet space, culminating with the Eurasian Economic Union, the chapter
finds that fundamental principles and templates of Europe’s regionalism of
the post-Cold War era are being challenged and modified: those of “neigh-
borhood,” “shared” neighborhood, “common spaces,” and open regional-
ism. The chapter examines the reconfiguration of the EU neighborhood as a
result of the two rival conceptualizations of regionalism, as the EU’s neo-
liberal model of deep and comprehensive free-trade association and the
Russia-dominated Eurasian Economic Union compete for the same mem-
bership pool and position in the wider-Eurasia regional system. Analysis
then turns to explore changes in the model of EU-centered regionalism to
find that the ENP increasingly reflects a redefined structure of incentives as a
zero-sum game with significant political consequences. The concluding
discussion evaluates the effects of geopolitical positioning on ENP’s sus-
tainability as a model of regional relations and outlines the limitations of the
EU’s ability to expand its regional influence through an open model of
regionalism.
Chapter 5 is devoted to the deterritorialization of European regionalism.
It explores the Transatlantic and global dimensions of the evolution of
European regionalism. The chapter problematizes the concept of open
regionalism from a global perspective. Its analytical focus is on changes in
global competition and structural interdependence, as a result of which
geoeconomic preferences gain priority vis-à-vis the classical regionalist
tenets of territorial clustering, economic cohesiveness, and deep institution-
alization. The chapter begins with an overview of major global trends that
determine the economic, political, and normative imperatives for the EU to
reform and reinvigorate the model of regionalism that it has established for
Europe. Analysis examines two cases of cross- and mega-regional
NOTES 21
NOTES
1. See World Trade Organization. Regional Trade Agreements Information
System, available at http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.
aspx (accessed April 8, 2017).
22 1 INTRODUCTION
2. Term used by James Rosenau in Along the Domestic Foreign Frontier: Explor-
ing Governance in a Turbulent World (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997).
3. It is important to differentiate between “regionalization,” “regionalism,” and
“integration.” “Regionalization” is a term denoting the objective trend of
enhanced interdependence in areas of geographical proximity (with
an emphasis on micro-, or market processes), while regionalism and integra-
tion are political processes. Regional integration is a consciously guided
process which involves a regionalist approach insofar as it creates viable
regions. As Hettne (1991) points out, it is neutral with respect to the specific
value of the region or unit to be integrated.
4. The designation “European Union” was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty
of 1992 to replace the term “European Economic Community” (EEC), the
international organization created under the Treaty of Rome (1957).
5. The EU has continued to conduct enlargement negotiations with the appli-
cant countries.
6. Barbara Wesel, “TTIP is (almost) dead, long live CETA!,” Deutsche Welle,
September 23, 2016, http://www.dw.com/en/ttip-is-almost-dead-long-live-
ceta/a-19571510, See also Deutsche Welle, “As CETA rises, TTIP
falls.” http://www.dw.com/en/as-ceta-rises-ttip-falls/a-19569802 (accessed
November 23, 2016).
7. According to Bergsten (1997), “open regionalism” is defined in terms of the
latter’s compatibility with the global trading system centered on the WTO.
8. The reference to the universality of “law-like theoretical claims” is borrowed
from Lynggaard (2012: 94).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acharya, Amitav. 2001. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia:
ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge.
———. 2004. How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and
Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism. International Organization 58 (2):
239–275.
Adler, Emanuel, and Michael Barnett. 1998. Security Communities. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Aggarwal, Vinod. 2004. Explaining Trends in EU Interregionalism. In European
Union Trade Strategies: Between Globalism and Regionalism, ed. Vinod Aggarwal
and Edward Fogarty. London: Palgrave.
Allison, Laura. 2015. The EU, ASEAN and Interregionalism: Regionalism Support
and Norm Diffusion Between the EU and ASEAN, The European Union in
International Affairs Series. Houndmills/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 23
Mansfield, Edward D., and Helen V. Milner, eds. 1997. The Political Economy of
Regionalism. New York: Colombia University Press.
Mansfield, Edward, and Helen V. Milner. 1999. The New Wave of Regionalism.
International Organization 53 (3): 589–627.
Mansfield, Edward, and Etel Solingen. 2010. Regionalism. Annual Review of Polit-
ical Science 13: 145–163.
Martinsen, Sindbjerg, and Dorte. 2012. The Europeanization of Health Care:
Process and Factors. In Research Design in the Social Sciences: Establishing Cau-
sality in Europeanisation, ed. Theofanis Exadaktylos and Claudio Radaelli,
141–159. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mattli, W. 1999. The Logic of European Integration: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Milward, Alan. 1992. The European Rescue of the Nation State. Berkeley/Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Nye, Joseph. 1971. Peace in Parts: Integration and Conflict in Regional Organiza-
tion. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Office of the United States Trade Representative. 2017. 2017 Trade Policy Agenda
and 2016 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade
Agreements Program. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2017/
AnnualReport/AnnualReport2017.pdf
Orbie, Jan. 2006. Civilian Power Europe: Review of the Original and Current
Debates. Cooperation and Conflict 41 (1): 123–128.
Richmond, Oliver, Sandra Pogodda, and Jasmin Ramovic, eds. 2016. The Palgrave
Handbook of Disciplinary and Regional Approaches to Peace. Basingstoke: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1993. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity
in International Relations. International Organization 47 (01): 139.
Russett, Bruce. 1967. International Regions and the International System: A Study
in Political Ecology. Chicago: Rand & McNally & Co..
———. 1975. International Regions and the International System. Westport:
Greenwood Press.
———. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schmitter, Philippe C. 1996. Examining the Present Euro-Polity with the Help of
Past Theories. In Governance in the European Union, ed. Gary Marks, Fritz
W. Scharpf, Philippe Schmitter, and Wolfgang Streeck. London: SAGE.
oderbaum, Fredrik, and Alberta Sbragia. 2010. EU Studies and the ‘New Region-
S€
alism’: What Can Be Gained from Dialogue? Journal of European Integration
32 (6): 563–582.
oderbaum, Fredrik, and Timothy M. Shaw, eds. 2003. Theories of New Regional-
S€
ism: A Palgrave Reader. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Solingen, Etel. 2015. Comparative Regionalism: Economics and Security. London:
Routledge.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 27
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is devoted to the theoretical field of European regionalism
examined through the lens of international relations and international
political economy perspectives, EU integration studies, and evolving varie-
ties of regionalism as it transitions from “old” to “new” and from inward- to
outward-looking varieties. The chapter reviews arguments about the signif-
icance of new regionalism as an analytical construct capturing the distinc-
tiveness of the regional level of analysis. It explores extensions of regionalist
theorizing on the example of comparative regionalism, institutionalism,
governance, post-revisionism, and dynamic perspectives. A separate section
addresses the evolving relationship between globalization and regionalism.
Based on the theoretical overview, the chapter develops the concept of
dynamic regionalism defined as region-building and cross-regional interac-
tions measured by relative positioning (cohesivesness, growth), impact on
the outlying environment (geopolitical gains), and response to the chal-
lenges of globalization (geoeconomic competition). The chapter provides a
historical overview of European integration as the principal embodiment of
Europe’s EU-centered model of regionalism. The final section outlines the
principal coexisting frameworks of European regionalism emerging as a
result of these trends and concludes that “new” regionalism, often consid-
ered a novel conceptualization of regionalism since the 1990s, is itself in a
state of flux.
The main argument of the chapter is that the study of regionalism based
on tenets of structural interdependence is shifting toward broader theories
of state behavior and international cooperation that are better positioned to
elucidate issues of competition, change, and sustainability pertaining to the
evolution of regional blocs. The overview of theoretical perspectives,
informed by general theories and European integration studies, sheds new
light on the sources of hypothesized change in the model of European
regionalism. The chapter sets forth the analytical foundations necessary to
explore the principal questions and concerns of the book.
This inquiry is also motivated by normative concerns, especially relevant
to the case of Brexit, the first instance in which the EU is about to experience
a decline in its membership base. As Keohane (2008: 708) suggests, new
studies emerge in the wake of crises and adverse developments in hopes of
understanding the drivers and directions of of change. To what extent will
the evolving model of EU regionalism be able to maintain its status of a
model regional system and continue to leave its footprint on global affairs?
Defining a Region
Regions may be defined according to a combination of referents of geo-
graphic and structural interdependence. A classical definition of a macro-
region in Nye (1971: vii) posits the region as “a limited number of states
linked together by a geographical relationship and by a degree of mutual
interdependence.” Buzan (1991: 188) defines regions as a distinct and
significant subsystem of security relations among states “whose fate is that
they have been interlocked into geographic proximity with each other.”
Katzenstein (2005) and Ohanyan (2015: 3) conceptualize regions as a
OF REGIONS AND REGIONALISM 31
Regionalism
Regionalism is a complex phenomenon and a standing feature of contem-
porary international relations (Teló 2016; Hettne et al. 2001; Higgott
2006: 33). Hettne (1991: 282) defines regionalism as “an ideology about
how the world should be organized to follow an example of pioneering
regionalizing regions and adapt to ‘a slicing up’ of interdependence.”1 It is
important to differentiate between “regionalization,” “regionalism,” and
“regional integration.” “Regionalization” is a term denoting the objective
bottom-up trend of enhanced interdependence in areas of geographical
proximity (with an emphasis on micro- or market processes) (Hurrell
1995; B€ orzel and Risse 2016b: 628), while regionalism and integration
imply political processes. Regional integration is a consciously guided pro-
cess that involves a regionalist approach insofar as it creates viable regions.
However, as Hurrell (1995) points out, it is neutral with respect to the
specific value of the region or unit to be integrated. Regionalism in the post-
World War II period was centered on the then European Economic Com-
munity (EEC) as a unique institution of regionalism and a model peace
system.
At the macro-level, region building is a rational process of policy deci-
sions by governments (Hurrell 1995: 43). In that sense, regionalism
approximates the rational design of institutions according to scope (range
of issues included), depth (extent of policy harmonization), institutionali-
zation (the presence of formal institutions), and centralization (the creation
of effective regional authority in decision-making) (Hurrell 1995: 43, fol-
lowing Smith 1992: 5). Regionalism can be measured according to different
OF REGIONS AND REGIONALISM 33
New Regionalism
The transition from the tenets of “old,” or closed, regionalism to a concept
of “new” open regionalism is associated with globalization (Wunderlich
2007). New regionalism represents the contemporary type of regionalism
pertaining to the post-Cold War evolution of regionalism from territorially
confined entities with protectionist tendencies into an open cross-regional
system that follows the trade liberalization nature of the global trading
system. Regionalism is therefore also an arena of global competition.
Fawcett (2005) notes that such trends take place within an interregional
perspective. Theoretically, the transition is marked by a movement
away from classical international relations theory toward international polit-
ical economy regionalist theorizing (Wunderlich 2007: 2).
According to Teló (2016: 26), new regionalism is an instance of multi-
lateralism in the posthegemonic era informed by shared values and norms,
and guided by rule structures and converging expectations (Keohane and
Nye 1984; Krasner 1983; Ruggie 1993). Furthermore, new regionalism
features an pronounced community aspect. It is comprised of a network of
36 2 EUROPE’S CONCEPTUALIZATION AS A REGION: POST-COLD WAR. . .
actors and geographic areas bound in region building and clustered inter-
action, non-western forms of trade integration, and transnational civil soci-
ety actors. Third, new regionalism has a cognitive dimension based on
values, cultural frames, political regimes, discourses on rights, and percep-
tions of external threats and responses (Teló 2016: 29).
Warleigh-Lack and Robinson (2011: 6) compare and contrast the old
regionalism of the Cold War period to the “new” regionalism of the post-
Cold War era. Old regionalism was defined according to superpower overlay
significantly reshaping regional relations (Buzan and Wæver 2003). The
authors find that “new” regionalism is less dependent on superpower
patronage, increasingly multipurpose rather than functionally specific,
which old regionalism was, and comprised of “porous” states and interac-
tions between states and nonstate actors. Most significantly, the authors
define new regionalism as economically open and neoliberal, and old
regionalism as protectionist. While old regionalism was driven by economic
and security concerns, new regionalism is a complex multilayered phenom-
enon. If the study of old regionalism was focused on internal dynamics, new
regionalism is based on complex external dynamics as drivers of integration.
Open regionalism captures the effort to make the best of the benefits of
regional liberalization without jeopardizing the continued vitality of the
multilateral system. At the same time, as Bergsten (1997) further argues, the
economics-based conceptualization of regionalism should be corrected by
adding a political dimension. One of the advantages of such a system of
regional relations is that it often has demonstration effects. Regional initia-
tives can accustom officials, governments, and nations to the liberalization
process and thus increase the probability that they will subsequently move
on to similar multilateral actions. In the EU case, this is the Europeanization
effect of European integration. Together with the socialization experience
of the west-centered European institutions since the 1990s and the condi-
tionality tools of the East-European enlargement, this type of regionalism
has emerged as a paradigm of political and economic development for the
wider Europe, experienced by a large number of negotiating partners. The
political effects of European regionalism, originally measured in terms of
preventing another war between France and Germany, have remained
significant due to the stabilizing effects of the institutionalization of regional
trade and interdependence.
Despite its trade creation effects, regionalism is not necessarily a best-case
strategy of trade liberalization. Studies have found that interregional agree-
ments are significant building blocks of the global trade system and at the
same time, an exception to the global trade regime, embodied in the WTO.
The global-regional lens is therefore of limited analytical utility with regard
to European regionalism that increasingly subsumes political, economic,
security, and community cooperation within and between regions. Simi-
larly, there is no consensus in the literature as to whether it isolates intra-
regional cooperation from global pressures or boosts the EU’s global role
and competitiveness. Laible and Barkey (2006) discuss globalization and
European integration in terms of analytically distinct spheres. The EU is
seen both as a force “harnessing globalization” (Orbie 2008) and as an
agent of globalization (Heisenberg 2006: 21).
The overall conclusion is that as much as multilateralism, embodied in
the world trading system has become a fact, the trend toward regionalism
and regionalization is the result of heightened competition, unequal distri-
bution of resources, opportunities for cross-border and transnational trans-
actions that tend to be regionally clustered, and differences in regulation.
This trend is accompanied by the movement toward increasing institution-
alization of regional clusters in Latin America, Africa, and the Pacific Rim.
THEORIZING REGIONALISM: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. . . 39
Neorealism
Neorealism looks at the region “outside in” (Hurrell 1995: 47), based on its
place in the international system. According to neorealism, regional group-
ing form in response to outside challenges. The geopolitical view of region-
alism is about power and security (Pedersen 2002: 680). There is no
distinction between economic and political regionalism (Hurrell 1995:
47). The regionalist strategies of weak states depend on great powers and
influential actors. According to this view, state preferences to join the
EEC/EU may be explained with the presence of a regional hegemon,
great-power rivalry, and the vulnerability of small states.
The hegemonic view of regionalism, including the theory of cooperative
hegemony (Pedersen 2002), sees regional clusters as serving the geopolitical
interests of the hegemon and leading regional states. Hegemony may recast
regionalism in a liberal or a realist perspective depending on the underlying
values and normative agenda of the influence. Feinberg (2005: xiii)
posits regionalism as a method to improve the U.S. global position.
U.S. hegemony is generally informed by a liberal worldview but in the
absence of a liberal-democratic value consensus, regionalism may replicate
power asymmetries (Serrano 2005: 15). The benevolent attitude of the
United States has been instrumental to forging post-World War II regional
integration projects in Europe and Asia (Katzenstein 2005). It has ensured
that European regionalism maintains an open nature, compatible with the
global trading system (Serrano 2005: 13). Katzenstein and Sil (2008: 124)
explain the differences between regionalism in Europe and in Asia as shaped
by an American imperium.
In the post-Cold War era, according to Feinberg (2005), regionalism has
come to reflect more pluralistic trends and shifts in the global distribution of
power. US preferences for global regulation have ceded way to the devel-
opment of a hemispheric trading strategy. Regional trade agreements in the
Americas emerged as an important component of US trade policy.
42 2 EUROPE’S CONCEPTUALIZATION AS A REGION: POST-COLD WAR. . .
Liberal Theories
Liberal theories explain regionalism through the lens of international coop-
eration, economic interests, transnationalism, and nonstate actors. Liberal-
ism conceptualizes regional integration as a variation of two-level games
(Putnam 1988; Moravcsik 1998). The state loses its unitary character as
social groups and elites determine its preferences for participation in
regional integration. A fundamental premise of liberal international theory
is the compatibility of states’ interests (as they all pursue absolute gains) and
the possibility for nonconflictual patterns of relations to predominate. All
liberal approaches underline an endogenous economic interest in regional-
ism. Interdependence theory is based upon this explicit assumption. Con-
vergence theories stress the shared preferences for public policy as a driver
for regional integration, a view discussed in Milward (1992). Liberal theory
explains regional integration by two propositions. On the one hand, it posits
that integration occurs through communication (learning) based on the
compatibility of states’ interests and/or because of interdependence. On
the other hand, relevant to the process are institutions created for the
purpose of resolving collective action and coordination problems. Liberal
perspectives on integration emphasize either its pluralist (functionalist) or
statist (neofunctionalist) nature.
Functionalism is only broadly relevant to regional integration—
inasmuch as it is concerned with transnational processes responding to
objective societal needs. Its founder, David Mitrany, was himself against
regional integration (Taylor 1975: xii).6 Despite its being a social perspec-
tive and not a specific international relations theory, functionalism is related
to the main issue in international relations, that of conflict and cooperation.
Its main concern is the development of “a working peace system” at the
international level (Mitrany 1975).
Early regional integration theory was informed by neofunctionalist pre-
mises. Ernst Haas has argued that integration is by definition a set of
institutionalized procedures devised by governments for the purpose
of modifying the conditions of interdependence by eliminating the conflic-
tual bias of interstate relations (Haas 1975: 210). Neofunctionalism
assumes that integration has an inner “expansive logic” (Haas 1968).
Through spillover, the completion of tasks in individual issue areas and
the resolution of conflicts progressively lead to more integration in other
related fields. Neofunctionalism was initially successful in explaining and
predicting the complexity of regional integration. Instead of assuming
THEORIZING REGIONALISM: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. . . 43
Social Constructivism
Constructivism explains state interest formation by incorporating con-
textually and intersubjectively defined identities. A dynamic approach to
identity constitutes the main distinction constructivism makes in regard to
THEORIZING REGIONALISM: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. . . 45
Comparative Regionalism
The comparative perspective marks the increasing inclusiveness of region-
alism. It is based on an understanding that the EU is not a sui generis case
and that regional blocs share a variety of theoretical and analytical comple-
mentarities and differences (B€ orzel and Risse 2016a). The pluralization of
regionalism may be linked to the United States’ adopting a regionalist view
in its foreign policy during the 1980s. The shift from the idea of globalism
and multilateralism associated with the world trading system to comple-
mentary regionalism in the Western Hemisphere was based on the principle
of competitive liberalization (Fawcett 1995: 20). Through the proposition
of interaction, diffusion, and emulation mechanisms of interregionalism,
comparative regionalism accepts that competitive behavior between region-
alist arrangements is possible but that it is not simply compensatory. It is
rather asymmetrical, depends on mechanisms of conflict resolution, allows
for different solutions (public and private, privileged and general), insider-
outsiders (Fawcett and Serrano: xxv), and may be transformative in nature,
especially as a result of the participation of civil society.
All these factors have fostered an unproblematic, optimistic understand-
ing of regionalism as a security and economic growth-creating process.
What the comparative regionalism perspective has yet to develop is a nor-
mative framework for analyzing neomercantilist regionalism poised to
develop into a dominant political doctrine for significant parts of Eurasia
as a result of China’s regional initiatives and the Russia-led Eurasian Eco-
nomic Union. By applying comparative regionalism relative to the concept
of open regionalism,9 Katzenstein (1996) has argued that the main distinc-
tion between European-style regionalism and Eurasian regionalism is the
quality of openness. A neomercantilist perspective is based on a view of the
world economy comprised of relatively closed regional blocs. It allows for
conditions under which regionalism may encourage competitive and rent-
seeking behavior on behalf of regional actors (Serrano 2005: 4). Such
propositions present an alternative to the liberal view of comparative region-
alism assuming that globalization creates pressures for convergence across
national economies and regional blocs.
THEORIZING REGIONALISM: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. . . 49
Dynamic Regionalism
The dynamic aspect of regionalism emerges as a result of the awareness that
regionalism is a form of policy design, a common state strategy for the
pursuit of systemic objectives, and a policy response.
Conceptualizing regionalism in motion is a perspective beyond the
research agenda of both new and comparative regionalism. One of the
THEORIZING REGIONALISM: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. . . 51
be applicable in the Brexit case) or, as the experience of Latin America has
demonstrated, closer relationships with the hegemonic power.
EU-centered regionalism is an example of an evolving pattern of regional
cooperation with global relevance. For this reason, international relations
theories are better positioned to explain it as a global phenomenon and
develop analytical constructs for inductive reasoning based on it. The
opportunity to apply a dynamic approach to the study of the EU as an
instance of regionalism offers significant analytical advantages.
Concerns for peace were of such high salience during the 1950s that the
regional integration project in Europe initially was not preoccupied with the
nature of political authority emerging as a result of the process. Integration
scholars concurred that the movement toward a regional peace system
modified the characteristics of regional order by altering a historically
established complex of regional security relations (integration as process)
and by redefining the nature of political organization through the creation
of an amalgamated or pluralistic security community (integration as out-
come).10 The prevalence of security objectives indicates that initially inte-
gration was much more internationally oriented as it linked the emerging
regional community to issues of peace and security in the international
system. Propositions in regard to an aggregate political community
replacing the nation-state as an organizing unit in the regional system
were developed at a later stage, as political processes moved beyond broad
political accommodation into deep institutionalization.
There is a consensus in the literature that the EU has established itself as a
nontraditional security actor. The works of a number of authors regard it as
the most important security institution in Europe and its enlargement—as
the consolidation of European order (Buzan and Wæver 2003; Kirchner
and Sperling 2002; Zielonka 2006; among others). The EU has identity
features; it attracts countries from the periphery and participates in the
creation of a normative environment for the whole of Europe. Security,
these authors argue, has become indivisible from the EU-integrative
dynamics as manifestation of a shared identity and contrary to the forces
of fragmentation. The EU’s security role is thus to be sought at three levels:
a strong union with one center (the EU’s Common Foreign and Security
Policy); an “external anchor” for the periphery (Berglof and Roland 2000;
Kupchan 1998); and a direct military capacity. As Anders Bjurner (1999:
17) has argued, the EU eastward enlargement should be regarded as
“perhaps the most important security producing process taking place in
Europe today.”
The EU’s conceptualization as a postmodern (in Wæver’s terms, a
“metaphorical” or “informal”) empire refers to the EU’s growing authority
in the wider Europe as a center of security creation (Wæver 1997;
Østergaard 1997). By extending integration across issue areas and geo-
graphical scales, Wæver contends, the EU replicates the modus operandi
of empire. The dynamic character of empire that maintains stability through
expansion conforms to the reality of EU’s continued enlargement and
“ALL OF THE ABOVE”: THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A. . . 55
perhaps Messina would come after all; and that might mean Western Europe
dominated in fact by Germany and used as an instrument for the revival of
German power through economic means. It would be really giving them on a
plate what we fought two wars to prevent. Of course, the great increase in
Russian and American power made the danger of a revived Germany far less
formidable than before and this would affect French opinion. Nevertheless I
did not like the prospect of a world divided into the Russian sphere, the
American sphere and a united Europe of which we were not a member.
(Macmillan 1971: 74)
strategy took place through the EU’s enlargement policies. There was a
consensus among the European elites that the eastward enlargement was a
peace process. The projection of stabilization policies and conflict resolution
initiatives toward the European periphery emerged as an equally significant
development. The EU consolidated its role as a global actor (European
Council 2003; Biscop and Andersson 2008; among others). In 2009, the
EU adopted the Lisbon Treaty, Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TfEU) as a foundation to its institutions in the wake of the 2004
eastward enlargement. In 2013, Croatia joined the EU as its 28th member
state. Three major processes have continued to define the contemporary
evolution of EU-centered regionalism: the latter’s systemic objective
of territorial expansion (albeit stalled), the ongoing geopolitical
restructuring of the European periphery, and the global relevance of
European integration.
The complexity of such processes raises the question: is the EU model of
regional cohesiveness sustainable? The argument developed here is that this
intriguing research question should be explored from the perspective the
EU’s global positioning along its key dimensions: the EU’s enlargement
policy, its neighborhood relations, an object of the ENP, and the cross-
regional initiatives that increasingly move beyond a territorially based model
of regionalism.
State Capitalism
Regionalism is connected to the predominant economic model of leading
states and trade policies maintaining patterns of regional interdependence.
60 2 EUROPE’S CONCEPTUALIZATION AS A REGION: POST-COLD WAR. . .
Table 2.1 Trade costs and trading regimes: protectionism, trade liberalization,
and deep integration (1929–2000)
Country
1970s (UK) and 1980s (Spain). While trade costs between France and the
UK declined rapidly after 1970, countries such as the UK and Norway
maintained relatively higher levels of trade costs, despite traditionally low
barriers in their bilateral trade since the interwar period. Crafts (2016: 7)
concludes that trade liberalization under the auspices of EFTA (of which
both the UK and Norway were members in the 1960s) was associated with
only modest reductions of trade costs, ultimately pointing to the role of
deep integration and the opportunities of intra-regional trade in the EEC.
At the same time, an argument has been made that, as a process privileg-
ing the interests of regional actors to the detriment of multilateral liberali-
zation, regionalism is compatible with patterns of bargaining based on
relative gains and selective benefits (Bhagwati 1991). Baghwati’s main
criticism of regionalism is that it resembles a policy of jointly agreed pro-
tectionism (Colombato 2000: 282). Protectionism may be explained with
the adjustment costs in the context of free trade that an industry or a group
needs to sustain in order to compete in highly efficient markets. In these
situations, state preferences may apply industrial policy to make adjustment
possible or deregulate the economy (Colombato 2000: 283).
Protectionism may be a viable policy choice also in the context of
technological change and the advent of new industries due to the need for
adjustments in the structure of comparative advantage. When import sub-
stitution is not possible to avoid, regionalism provides participating states
with a protectionist alternative as it allows for regional political support for
national policies under the premises of open regionalism. On the other
hand, the industrialization of developing and transition economies shows
that market dynamics alone may be insufficient to advance structural trans-
formation and that state intervention in the economy is necessary
(UNCTAD 2016: 31). The experience of state capitalism with its massive
allocation capacity has shifted the sources of economic growth to countries
with less reliance of self-regulating markets. Furthermore, the inability of
deregulated markets and financial innovation to ensure the efficient alloca-
tion of resources and generate global growth has increased the risks associ-
ated with the global economy and prevented convergence form taking
place, opening up space for protectionist policies. The active application of
trade policy in the context of increasing globalization shows that the latter
depends on policy preferences, such as removal of trade barriers, economic
activities reflected in increasing scale of trade and investment flows, and an
institutional dimension comprised of the rules and norms managing global
interactions (UNCTAD 2016: 34).
THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS OF REGIONALISM: NEOMERCANTILISM. . . 63
World 1.5 2.1 4.1 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.3
Developed countries, 0.1 3.6 2.6 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.7 2 1.6
of which
Japan 1.0 5.5 4.7 0.5 1.7 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.7
United States 0.3 2.8 2.5 1.6 2.2 1.7 2.4 2.6 1.6
EU28, of which 0.4 4.4 2.1 1.8 0.4 0.3 1.4 2.0 1.8
Euro zone 0.5 4.5 2.1 1.6 0.9 0.3 0.9 1.7 1.6
Germany 1.1 5.6 4.1 3.7 0.4 0.3 1.6 1.7 1.7
France 0.2 2.9 2 2.1 0.2 0.7 0.2 1.2 15
Italy 1.1 5.5 1.7 0.6 2.8 1.8 0.3 0.8 0.8
UK 0.5 4.2 1.5 2 1.2 2.2 2.9 2.3 1.8
EU member states after 3.6 3.6 2 3.1 0.5 1.1 2.7 3.4 2.6
2004
Developing countries 5.2 2.4 7.8 5.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 3.9 3.8
Brazil 5.1 0.1 7.5 3.9 1.9 3 0.1 3.8 3.2
China 9.6 9.2 10.6 9.5 7.7 7.7 7.3 6.9 6.7
India 6.2 5 11 6.1 4.9 6.3 7 7.2 7.6
South Africa 3.2 1.5 3 3.2 2.2 2.2 1.5 1.3 0.3
CONCLUSION
This chapter has presented a theoretical overview of international relations
perspectives, comparative politics studies, and regional integration theory in
their relative utility to elucidate the workings of the EU as a project of
regionalism. It advanced an argument that regionalism is an important
analytical construct amenable to a pluralist theoretical treatment combining
historical, geopolitical, economic, and ideational perspectives. The norma-
tive questions associated with the evolution and expansion of regionalism
refer to both old and new dilemmas. Regionalism has yet to confirm the
opportunities it has created for global growth, given the imbalances of trade
creation, continued application of protectionism as a trade policy, trade-offs
between joint decision-making and autonomy in regional blocs, and the
increasingly competitive relationship between long-established (neo)liberal
NOTES 65
NOTES
1. Similarly, the normative nature of regionalism is captured in Hurrell (1995:
39) defining regionalism as a doctrine of “how international relations ought
to be organized.”
2. Quoted in Fawcett (1995: 12).
3. According to Bergsten (1997), to be WTO-legal, such agreements must
meet three criteria: they must cover “substantially all” trade of member
countries, they must avoid raising new barriers to nonmembers, and they
must achieve free trade among members by a date certain (normally not to
exceed ten years from the start date). Most notably, the concept is applied
with regard to Asian regionalism and its compatibility with the global WTO
trading system.
4. The principal international relations perspectives offer competing explana-
tions of the role of power and interest formation for state behavior and
international outcomes applicable to regionalism. Neorealism advances
structural interdependence as a key explanatory variable, foundational to
regional security complex theory. Liberalism is based on propositions of
interdependence, and neoliberalism on converging state interests. Construc-
tivism posits shared identities; transactionalism posits communication and a
feeling of empathy. Institutionalism approximates regionalism to the crea-
tion of regional institutions for the resolution of collective action and coor-
dination problems.
5. Theoretical studies on regionalism and regional integration provide examine
a variety of perspectives across levels of analysis and discipline boundaries.
Mansfield and Milner (1997) explore the political sources of regionalism
66 2 EUROPE’S CONCEPTUALIZATION AS A REGION: POST-COLD WAR. . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acharya, Amitav. 2001. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia:
ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge.
———. 2004. How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and
Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism. International Organization 58 (2):
39–75.
———. 2016. Foreword: Interregionalism in a Multiplex World. In Interregionalism
and the European Union: A Post-revisionist Approach to Europe’s Place in a Chang-
ing World, ed. Mario Teló, Louise Fawcett, and Frederik Ponjaert, xix–xxiv.
London: Routledge.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 67
Adler, Emanuel. 1998. Seeds of Peaceful Change: The OSCE’s Security Community
Building Model. In Security Communities, ed. Emanuel Adler and Michael
Barnett, 119–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, Kym, and Richard Snape. 1994. European and American Regionalism:
Effects on and Options for Asia. Journal of the Japanese and International
Economies 8: 454–477.
Balassa, Bela. 1961. Theory of Economic Integration. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Baldwin, Richard. 1997. The Causes of Regionalism. The World Economy 20 (7):
865–888.
———. 2004. Managing EU Enlargement. In Managing European Union Enlarge-
ment, ed. Helge Berger and Thomas Moutos, 11–27. Cambridge/London: The
MIT Press.
Berger, Helge, and Thomas Moutos, eds. 2004. Managing European Union
Enlargement. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
Berglof, Eric, and Garreth Roland. 2000. From ‘Regatta’ to ‘Big Bang?’ – The
Impact of the EU Accession Strategy on Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe.
In IMF Working Paper. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
Bergsten, Fred. 1997. Open Regionalism. Working Paper 97–3. Washington, DC:
Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Bhagwati, Jagdish. 1991. The World Trading System at Risk. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
———. 1993. Regionalism and Multilateralism: An Overview. In New Dimensions
of Regional Integration, ed. J. de Melo and A. Panagariya, 22–51. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Biscop, Sven, and Jan Joel Andersson, eds. 2008. The EU and the European Security
Strategy: Forging a Global Europe. London/New York: Routledge.
Bjurner, Anders. 1999. Reflections of Subregionalism and Wider European Security.
In Building Security in Europe’s New Borderlands: Subregional Cooperation in the
Wider Europe, ed. Renata Dwan. Armonk: East West Institute; London:
M.E. Sharpe.
Blair, Alisdair. 2009. The European Union Since 1945. London: Taylor & Francis.
B€
orzel, Tanja A., Lukas Goltermann, Mathis Lohaus, and Kai Striebinger, eds.
2012. Roads to Regionalism: Genesis, Design, and Effects of Regional Organiza-
tions, 294 pp. Burlington: Ashgate, isbn: 978-1-4094-3464-1.
orzel, Tanja, and Thomas Risse, eds. 2016a. Handbook of Comparative Regional-
B€
ism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2016b. Introduction. In Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, ed. Tanja
B€orzel and Thomas Risse, 3–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Breckinridge, Robert. 1997. Reassessing Regimes: The International Regime
Aspects of the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 35:
173–187.
68 2 EUROPE’S CONCEPTUALIZATION AS A REGION: POST-COLD WAR. . .
Breslin, Shaun, Richard Higgott, and Ben Rosamond. 2002. Regions in Compara-
tive Perspective. In New Regionalism in the Global Political Economy, ed. Shawn
Breslin, Christopher Hughes, Nicola Phillips, and Ben Rosamond, 1–20.
London/New York: Routledge.
Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics.
New York: Columbia University Press.
———. 1982. Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Com-
mon Market Studies 21 (2): 149–170.
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of Inter-
national Society. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, Barry, Charles Jones, and Richard Little. 1991. The Logic of Anarchy:
Neorealism to Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Buzan, Barry, Morten Kelstrup, Pierre Lemaitre, Elzbieta Tromer, and Ole Wæver.
1990. The European Security Order Recast: Scenarios for the Post-Cold Era.
London/New York: Pinter Publishers.
Cameron, Fraser, ed. 2004a. The Future of Europe: Integration and Enlargement.
London/New York: Routledge.
———. 2004b. Widening and Deepening. In The Future of Europe: Integration and
Enlargement, ed. Fraser Cameron, 1–17. London/New York: Routledge.
Caporaso, James A. 1996. The European Union and Forms of State: Westphalian,
Regulatory or Post-Modern? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 34 (1):
29–52.
Cohen, Saul. 2003. Geopolitics of the World System. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Colombato, Enrico. 2000. An Explanation of the Dynamics of Protectionism. Open
Economies Review 11: 279–293.
Cooper, Robert. 2000. The Postmodern State and the World Order. Demos,
Available at: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/postmodernstate.pdf?1240939425.
Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
Copsey, Nathaniel. 2015. Rethinking the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Cox, Robert. 1983. Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in
Method. Millennium 12 (2): 162–175.
Crafts, Nicholas. 2016. West European Economic Integration Since 1950. In
Routledge Handbook of the Economics of European Integration, ed. Harald
Badinger and Volker Nitsch, 3–21. London/New York: Routledge.
Danson, Mike, Henrik Halkier, and Greta Cameron. 2000. Governance, Institu-
tional Change and Regional Development. Aldershot/Brookfield: Ashgate.
DeBardeleben, Joan, ed. 2008. The Boundaries of EU Enlargement: Finding a Place
for Neighbours. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 69
De La Guillermo, Dehesa. 2006. The European Union at the Crossroads: Will the EU
Ever Be Able to Compete with the United States as an Economic Power. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
De Lombaerde, Philippe. 2006. Assessment and Measurement of Regional Integra-
tion. London: Routledge.
Deutsch, Karl, et al. 1957. Political Community and the North Atlantic Area:
International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Diez, Thomas, and Antje Wiener. 2003. Introducing the Mosaic of Integration
Theory: Its Past, Present and Future. Paper presented at the European Union
Studies Association 8th Biennial Conference, Nashville, TN, March 27–29.
Diez, Thomas. 2005. Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering
‘Normative Power Europe’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33 (3):
613–636.
Dobson, Wendy. 2012. History Matters: China and Global Governance. In China’s
Role in the World Economy, ed. Yiping Huang and Miaojie Yu, 258–288.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Dominguez, Edmé, and Bj€ orn Hettne. 2001. The European Union and NAFTA
Compared. In Comparing Regionalisms: Implications for Global Development,
ed. Bj€orn Hettne, András Inotai, and Osvaldo Sunkel, 187–213. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Duch^ene, Francois. 1973. The European Community and the Uncertainties of
Interdependence. In A Nation Writ Large? Foreign-Policy Problems Before the
European Community, ed. M. Kohnstamm and W. Hager, 1–21. London:
Macmillan.
Eaton, Jonathan and Akiko Tamura. 1994. Bilateralism and Regionalism in Japanese
and U.S. Trade and Foreign Direct Investment Patterns. Journal of the Japanese
and International Economies 8: 478–510.
Egger, Peter, and John Whalley. 2012. Global Constraints on European Integration
over the Next Few Decades. In The Continuing Evolution of Europe, ed. Thiess
Buettner and Wolfgang Ochel, 33–51. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Elvert, Jürgen. 2009. The Institutional Paradox: How Crises Have Reinforced
European Integration. In Crises in European Integration: Challenge and
Response, 1945–2005, ed. Ludger Kühnhardt, 49–60. New York/Oxford:
Berghahn Books.
European Commission. 2006. Global Europe: Competing in the World: A Contribu-
tion to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy. COM (2006) 567. Brussels: European
Commission.
European Council. 2003. A Secure Europe in a Better World – European Security
Strategy. Brussels: European Council.
European Economic Community. 1966. Bulletin of the European Economic Com-
munity, No. 6: 8–9 Brussels: EEC.
70 2 EUROPE’S CONCEPTUALIZATION AS A REGION: POST-COLD WAR. . .
———. 1970. Bulletin of the European Economic Community, No. 11, 9–12. Brus-
sels: EEC.
European Union. 1951. Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Commu-
nity (Treaty of Paris), Paris, April 18. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
EN/TXT/HTML/?uri¼LEGISSUM:xy0022&from¼EN. Accessed 25 May
2017).
———. 2002. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the European Union, Official
Journal of the European Communities C 325/5. December 24. Title 5.
Fawcett, Louise. 1995. Regionalism in a Historical Perspective. In Regionalism in
World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order, ed. Louise
Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell, 9–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fawcett, Louise. 2005. The Origins and Development of the Regional Idea in the
Americas. In Regionalism and Governance in the Americas: Continental Drift,
ed. Louise Fawcett and Mónica Serrano, xii–xxvii. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Fawcett, Louise, and Mónica Serrano. 2005. Introduction. In Regionalism and
Governance in the Americas: Continental Drift, ed. Louise Fawcett and Mónica
Serrano, xxii–xxvii. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fawcett, Louise, Frederik Ponjaert, and Mario Teló. 2016. Introduction. In
Interregionalism and the European Union: A Post-revisionist Approach to Europe’s
Place in a Changing World, ed. Mario Teló, Louise Fawcett, and Frederik
Ponjaert, 1–14. London: Routledge.
Fawn, Rick, ed. 2009. Globalizing the Regional: Regionalizing the Global. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feinberg, Richard. 2005. Preface. In Regionalism and Governance in the Americas:
Continental Drift, ed. Louise Fawcett and Mónica Serrano, xii–xxx. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Galtung, Johan. 1996. Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development
and Civilization. Oslo; London: PRIO; SAGE Publications.
Gourevitch, Peter. 1978. The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of
Domestic Politics. International Organization 32 (4): 881–912.
Gowa, Joanne. 1994. Allies, Adversaries, and International Trade. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Haas, Ernst. 1968. The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces
1950–1957. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 1975. The Obsolescence of Integration Theory. Berkeley: Institute of Interna-
tional Studies, University of California.
Hall, Peter. 1992. The Movement from Keynesianism to Monetarism: Institutional
Analysis and British Economic Policy in the 1970s. In Structuring Politics:
Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, ed. Sven Steinmo, Kathleen
Thelen, and Frank Longstreth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 71
Hasenclever, Amdreas, Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberger. 1997. Theories of Inter-
national Regimes. Cambridge/New York/Oakleigh/Madrid: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Heisenberg, Dorothee. 2006. Can the European Union Control the Agenda of
Globalization? In European Responses to Globalization: Resistance, Adaptation
and Alternatives, ed. Janet Laible and Henri Barkey, 19–39. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Hettne, Bj€orn. 1991. Security and Peace in Post-Cold War Europe. Journal of Peace
Research 28 (3): 279–294.
———. 2002. The Europeanization of Europe: Endogenous and Exogenous
Dimensions. Journal of European Integration 24 (4): 325–340.
———. 2003. The New Regionalism Revisited. In Theories of New Regionalism: A
Palgrave Reader, ed. Frederik S€ oderbaum and Timothy Shaw, 22–43.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Hettne, Bj€orn, and Frederik S€oderbaum. 2000. Theorising the Rise of Regionness.
New Political Economy 5 (3): 457–473.
Hettne, Bj€ orn, and Fredrik S€oderbaum. 2012. The Future of Regionalism: Old
Divides, New Frontiers. In Regionalisation and Global Governance: The Taming
of Globalisation? ed. Andrew F. Cooper, Christopher W. Hughes, and Philippe
De Lombaerde, 61–79. London: Routledge.
Hettne, Bj€orn, András Inotai, and Osvaldo Sunkel, eds. 2001. Comparing Region-
alisms: Implications for Global Development. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Higgott, Richard. 2006. The Theory and Practice of Region: The Hanging Global
Context. In Regional Integration in East Asia and Europe: Convergence or
Divergence? ed. Bertrand Fort and Douglas Webber, 17–38. London/
New York: Routledge.
Hix, Simon. 1998. The Study of the European Union II: The “New Governance”
Agenda and Its Rival. Journal of European Public Policy 5.
Hoffmann, Stanley. 1987. International Organization and International System. In
Janus and Minerva: Essays in the Theory and Practice of International Politics.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Hurrell, Andrew. 1995. Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective. In Regionalism in
World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order, ed. Louise
Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell, 37–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2005. Hegemony and Regional Governance in the Americas. In Regional-
ism and Governance in the Americas: Continental Drift, ed. Louise Fawcett and
Mónica Serrano, 185–207. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hurrell, Andrew, and Louise Fawcett. 1995. Conclusion. In Regionalism in World
Politics: Regional Organization and International Order, ed. Louise Fawcett and
Andrew Hurrell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72 2 EUROPE’S CONCEPTUALIZATION AS A REGION: POST-COLD WAR. . .
Jeffery, Charlie, and Arjan Schakel. 2013. Insights: Methods and Data Beyond
Methodological Nationalism. Regional Studies 47 (3): 402–404. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.746444.
Jupille, Joseph, James A. Caporaso, and Jeffrey T. Checkel. 2017. Integrating
Institutions. Comparative Political Studies 36 (1–2): 7–40.
Kastoryano, Riva. 2006. Europe: Space, Territory and Identity. In European
Responses to Globalization: Resistance, Adaptation and Alternatives, ed. Janet
Laible and Henri Barkey, 93–110. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Katzenstein, Peter. 1996. Regionalism in Comparative Perspective. ARENA Working
Papers WP 96/1. http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/a
rena-working-papers/1994-2000/1996/96_01.html
———, ed. 1997. Tamed Power: Germany in Europe. Ithaca/London: Cornell
University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J. 2005. A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American
Imperium. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter, and Rudra Sil. 2008. Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and
Practice of International Relations. In The Oxford Handbook of International
Relations, ed. Christian Reu-Smit and Duncan Snidal, 109–130. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Keohane, Robert. 2008. Big Questions in the Study of World Politics. In The Oxford
Handbook of International Relations, ed. Duncan Snidal and Christian Reus-
Smit, 708–715. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keohane, R., and Joseph Nye. 1984. Power and Interdependence. Boston: Longman.
Kirchner, Emil, and James Sperling. 2002. The New Security Threats in Europe:
Theory and Evidence. European Foreign Affairs Review 7 (4): 423–452.
Kneebone, Susan, and Felicity Rawlings-Sanaei. 2007. Introduction: Regionalism as
a Response to a Global Challenge. In New Regionalism and Asylum Seekers:
Challenges Ahead, ed. Susan Kneebone and Felicity Rawlings-Sanaei, 1–24.
New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Krasner, Stephen. 1983. Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as
Intervening Variables. In International Regimes, ed. Stephen Krasner. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1986. Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry
Into the Formation of the State System. World Politics 39: 27–52.
Kupchan, Charles, ed. 1998. Atlantic Security: Contending Visions. New York:
Council on Foreign Relations.
Kurlantzick, Joshua. 2016. State Capitalism: How the Return of Statism Is
Transforming the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laible, Janet, and Henri Barkey, eds. 2006. European Responses to Globalization:
Resistance, Adaptation and Alternatives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Laursen, Finn. 2003. Comparative Regional Integration: Theoretical Perspectives.
London: Ashgate.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 73
oderbaum, Fredrik, and Alberta Sbragia. 2010. EU Studies and the ‘New Region-
S€
alism’: What Can Be Gained from Dialogue? Journal of European Integration 32
(6): 563–582.
oderbaum, Fredrik, and Timothy M. Shaw, eds. 2003. Theories of New Regional-
S€
ism. A Palgrave Reader. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Solimano, Andres. 2014. Economic Elites, Crises, and Democracy: Alternatives
Beyond Neoliberal Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Solingen, Etel. 2015. Comparative Regionalism: Economics and Security. London:
Routledge.
Solingen, Etel, and Joshua Malnight. 2016. Globalization, Domestic Politics, and
Regionalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, ed. Tanja
B€orzel and Thomas Risse, 64–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
orensen, Georg. 2001. Changes in Statehood: the Transformation of International
S€
Relations. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave.
Spolaore, Enrico. 2016. The Political Economy of European Integration. In
Routledge Handbook of the Economics of European Integration, ed. Harald
Badinger and Volker Nitsch, 435–448. London/New York: Routledge.
Stefanova, Boyka. 2005. The European Union as a Security Actor: Security Provi-
sion Through Enlargement. World Affairs 168 (2): 51–66.
———. 2006. Regional Integration as a System of Conflict Resolution: The Euro-
pean Experience. World Affairs 169 (2): 81–93.
———. 2011. The Europeanization of Conflict Resolution: Integration and Conflicts
in Europe from the 1950s to the 21st Century. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Taylor, Paul. 1975. Introduction. In The Functional Theory of Politics, ed. David
Mitrany. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
Teló, Mario. 2016. Contribution to a Periodization of Comparative Regionalist
Studies. In Interregionalism and the European Union: A Post-revisionist Approach
to Europe’s Place in a Changing World, ed. Mario Teló, Louise Fawcett, and
Frederik Ponjaert, 17–32. London: Routledge.
Teló, Mario, Louise Fawcett, and Frederik Ponjaert, eds. 2016. Interregionalism
and the European Union: A Post-revisionist Approach to Europe’s Place in a
Changing World. London: Routledge.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2016. Trade
and Development Report: Structural Transformation for Inclusive and Sustained
Growth. Geneva: UNCTAD.
Viner, Jacob. 1950. The Customs Union Issue. New York: Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.
Warleigh-Lack, Alex, and Nick Robinson. 2011. Introduction: Regions, Regional-
ism and Comparisons. In New Regionalism and the European Union: Dialogues,
Comparisons, and Research Directions, ed. A. Warleigh-Lack, Nick Robinson,
and Ben Rosamond, 3–17. London/New York: Routledge.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 77
INTRODUCTION
Since its beginnings, in all of its hitherto existing configurations,1 the
European Union (EU) has gone through five enlargement rounds:
(1) UK, Denmark, and Ireland (1973); (2) Greece (1981); (3) Portugal
and Spain (1986); (4) Austria, Finland, and Sweden (1995); and (5) the
East-European accession (2004–2013) when three tiers of countries in
Central and Eastern Europe joined the EU.2 In the context of such historical
continuity, enlargement has emerged as a structural feature of European
integration. However, in the wake of its 2004–2007 eastward enlargement,
the EU descended into “enlargement fatigue” (Bindi and Angelescu
2011a). This situation is puzzling, despite the variety of explanations
drawn from the everyday politics of European integration and integration
theory. Geographic expansion has marked a historical continuity for the
EU. The functionalist perspective subsumes enlargement under the premise
of regional integration as a working peace system. Building upon the for-
mative case of Franco-German reconciliation through European integration,
all rounds of EU enlargement have reaffirmed European values of democ-
racy, unification, and regional peace (Bindi and Angelescu 2011b). Enlarge-
ment has completely reconfigured the original European Economic
Community (EEC) from a West-centric to a pan-EU (Nugent 2006) and
is viewed as a catalyst for European integration. At the same time, enlarge-
ment has emerged as one of the most contested EU policies. Against the
background of economic and financial crises, and the rising costs of adding
political groups affected by the policy; and economic efficiency and welfare
gains with the potential to sustain future policy iterations (by creating new
vested interests). Building on the historical record of prior EU enlarge-
ments, the chapter examines the continued implementation of the policy in
the aftermath of the East-European accession (2004–2007). It concludes
with an overall assessment of the risks of policy reversal and an evaluation of
the usefulness and limitations of political sustainability to explain political
dynamics within the EU enlargement policy.
actors with different interests and values (Hayes 2001: 40). The EU’s
enlargement policy has been designed along these lines to smooth out
nonincremental change and external systemic shocks through a process of
trade-offs and compromise. Negotiation and joint decision-making ensure
that inputs are converted into a gradual, incremental, and progressive pro-
cess. The established model is therefore predictable; a stable and progressively
expanding process of horizontal institutionalization (Schimmelfennig and
Sedelmeier 2002) replacing the original enlargement model of asymmetric
negotiation.
strengthens the legitimacy of public policy, while institutions create the long-
term framework of success or failure.
Political Structures
Institutions promote policy continuity. They permit incremental capacity
buildup when in the context of changes in the venue of decision-making.
For example, the process of EU enlargement negotiations reflects a bundle
of policies that lock in the effects of reform and democratization and grant
legitimacy and attractiveness to the process. As a type of public policy,
enlargement relies on the support of private actors—public opinion and
interest groups. For this reason, enlargement policy is likely to shift its focus
and negotiating arena between issues of democratization, immigration,
reunification, market expansion, and so on. To ensure that diverse group
interests are reconciled, the policy depends on institutional creation to
maintain compliance and communication.
Economic Opportunities
The dynamic perspective on enlargement needs to acknowledge that what
was true for several rounds of enlargement—creating a larger internal market,
adding consumers, and improving the EU’s global competitiveness—may
not hold true in the long run. Studies have demonstrated that the extensive
model of growth by adding manufacturing capacity and increasing the num-
ber of consumers does not contribute to wealth maximization and growth
(Lejour et al. 2001). Besides, the distributive effects of enlargement, those of
creating winners and losers, while compensated ex ante through the condi-
tions of membership, later on exert influence over policy choice and provide
policy feedback that affects policy implementation and sustainability. Con-
sumer and producer groups, whose preferences are unaccounted for at the
policy formulation stage and enlargement decisions, may have significant
influence over policy implementation through the national electoral cycle,
major EU political initiatives, European elections, or transnational interest
groups. Maintaining support for enlargement depends on the nature of
economic incentives and interdependencies it creates and the ability to
reinvent itself through market expansion, factor mobility, and global
competitiveness.
CONTINUED ENLARGEMENT: IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THE EU’S. . . 89
Policy Feedback
There is a long-established literature on policy feedback in European studies
(Kay 2006; Pierson 1996; Schimmelfennig et al. 2006; Scharpf 1997,
among others). It draws on the proposition that policy creates new politics
(Schattschneider 1935, 1960; Campbell 2012) and that different types of
policies—constitutive, distributive, redistributive, and composite (defined
according to Lowi (1971; 1972))—generate different political dynamics
(Patashnik 2008: 29; Schimmelfennig 2014). Although policy feedback is
conventionally examined as a source of continuity in European integration
(Pierson 1994, 2000, 2005), the type of feedback that the EU enlargement
policy generates has not been examined from the perspective of continued
policy implementation. The effects of enlargement are generally dispersed,
while the costs are concentrated due to the changing ratios of net benefi-
ciaries and net contributors to the EU budget. The ability of beneficiaries
and contributors to mobilize in favor of or against the policy is a factor of
policy sustainability.
acceding Central and Eastern Europe Countries (CEECs) was a key issue
for the EU in the context of the 2004 enlargement. Whereas 22% of the
population of EU-158 lived in regions with less than 75% of the then
average GDP per capita, following the eastward enlargement 93% of the
population of the NMS lived in regions with GDP per capita of less than
75% of the enlarged EU average and was eligible to receive EU structural
funds. Designed to serve an ever-expanding territorial framework on the
principles of social justice and redistribution, enlargement is also one of the
main instruments of market integration serving the objectives of investment
regionalism. Its practical implementation is therefore at the center of the
EU’s model of progressive regionalism.
policy, new demands for problem solving, such as the UK budget rebate,
the quality of democracy in Southern Europe, the post-communist transi-
tion, human rights and protection of minorities, conflict resolution, neigh-
borhood relations, and so on. None of these issues has been resolved
exclusively through redistribution but has required a renewed value con-
sensus, including on issues such as solidarity, the desired level of suprana-
tionalism, and the direction of integration.
The first European enlargement (1973), in which Denmark, Ireland, and
the UK joined the EEC, was shaped by the idea about European unity.
Even though redistributive issues ranked high in the negotiations, the
debate among the six “old” member states was primarily about the political
differentiation between continental Europe and the UK, the Europeanist
and Atlanticist powers in European politics, and the interface between
them. The economic dimension was negotiated separately and acquired
salience only at a later stage. The UK entry introduced a renewed consensus
on the necessity of joint action to reduce regional disparities through the
creation of the European Regional Development Fund. By contrast, the
East-European accession failed to create new institutions for managing the
changed configuration of the club and the growing diversity of its mem-
bership base. The Nice Treaty (2001) was supposed to ensure voting rights
for the NMS. But the treaty did not go far enough to facilitate decision-
making in the anticipated larger union. Furthermore, the Constitutional
Treaty (2004) that was supposed to correct for the institutional weaknesses
of prior treaties and advance the level of EU integration in the context of
enlargement, failed to receive the approval of the European publics. Insti-
tutional creation as a sustaining mechanism for the eastward enlargement
thus did not take place.
Political costs, ideational arguments, and geopolitical gains ranked high
in the collective EU preference for a robust East-European enlargement
(2004–2007). The accession of ten new East-European states took place
within a multidimensional enlargement model combining economic, polit-
ical, institutional, and identity issues (Nugent 2006: 66). The application of
conditionality became increasingly political and institutional in nature.9 In
the context of the East-European accession, the framework of negotiations
was not only incomplete due to the extensive reference to political condi-
tionality; it also redefined the meaning of membership from a concept
indicating status (with or without reduced access to benefits) to one
reflecting an open-ended process of adjustment through instruments for
post-accession monitoring, commitment to participation in integration
CONTINUED ENLARGEMENT: IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THE EU’S. . . 93
projects subject to change and reform (e.g., the Eurozone and the
Schengen Agreement), and compliance with norms not fully internalized
by the “old” member states (e.g., minority rights).
Enlargement has remained a process of incomplete negotiation. It takes
place by means of open commitments, transitional periods, mid-term
adjustment, and enhanced monitoring, which suggests that integration,
while aspiring to correct for heterogeneity and problematic diversity, may
lead to disequilibria and the unequal distribution of costs and benefits. As a
classical integration process, enlargement both corrects for internal
disequilibria and creates new imbalances: by increasing the heterogeneity
of club membership, by opening integration to uncharted waters, or by
revealing its limitations to resolve distributional conflicts. It established a
seven-year transitional period for the free movement of labor from Eastern
Europe to West-European markets; obtained the CEECs’ commitment to
adopting the Euro but did not provide them with immediate access to the
common currency; promised but did not grant the East-European member
states immediate membership in the Schengen Agreement; failed to resolve
the Cyprus conflict through the accession process; and imposed a Cooper-
ation and Verification Mechanism of monitoring Bulgaria’s and Romania’s
compliance with the responsibilities of membership, effectively assigning
them a second-tier membership status.
CEECs EU 15
Modernization of CEECs
0 20 40 60 80
Fig. 3.1 The EU 2004 enlargement in retrospect (2009): the consequences of the
integration of CEECs into the EU, net positive responses (agreement with state-
ment) (Data source: European Commission 2004: 21)
96 3 THE POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRESSIVE ENLARGEMENT. . .
in per capita GDP. One of the specifics of the eastward enlargement was that
the candidate countries and later NMS were, on average, significantly poorer
than the EU. Compared with the 1998 EU average GDP per capita, income
levels in the NMS amounted to 51% in Central Europe (the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Poland, Croatia, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia), to 32.6% in
the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), and to 22.1% in South-
Eastern Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, FYR of Macedonia, and Romania).
The UK had joined the then EEC in 1973 as the sick man of Europe
(Smith 2017: 21). By the late 1960s, France, West Germany, and Italy—the
three founder EU members closest in size to the UK—had a higher GDP
per capita than the UK and the gap grew over time. Between 1958, when
the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, GDP per capita rose 95% in
these three countries compared with only 50% in Britain. After becoming an
EEC member state, the UK began to catch up. Its GDP per capita grew
faster than Italy, Germany, and France since then. By 2013, Britain
had become more prosperous than the average of the three other large
European economies for the first time since 1965. UK trade with EU
partners grew faster after 1973 than it did with the countries of its former
membership, the European Free Trade Association. EU trade liberalization
was a major factor in improving competition as high-productivity UK
sectors, including finance, high-tech manufacturing, and business services,
have benefited from the large geographically concentrated EU markets with
strong unified regulations (Table 3.1).15
Welfare and efficiency gains for the countries of the fifth enlargement
(2004–2007) have not been as unequivocal as for the first enlargement.
While the NMS accounted for about 21% of the EU population, they
contributed only about 7% of EU GDP (European Commission 2009).
As economic growth in the new members has been significantly stronger,
the initial income gap relative to the EU average is narrowing. The
East-European accession depended on including the NMS in the Objective
1 area of the EU’s regional policy to achieve convergence, which Baldwin
(2004: 21) has called “an expensive proposition.”
This redistribution of funds made the accession countries more attractive
as a location of FDI. Such a reallocation of investment flows was made in
accordance with Agenda 2000 (European Commission 1997). Successive
revisions of the financial perspective for an enlarged union have resulted in a
redistribution of FDI by approximately 4–8 percentage points from the
current EU members to the accession countries (2004 scenario) and 7–10
percentage points (2007 scenario), respectively.
CONTINUED ENLARGEMENT: IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THE EU’S. . . 99
Table 3.1 EU membership: Good for the UK economy. Growth in real GDP per
capita, comparative data for UK relative to France, Germany, and Italy (1975–2015)
(Average annual growth rates, in percent)
Country 1975–1985 1985–1990 1990–1995 1995–2002 2005–2015
Data source: Eurostat, statistical table, various years, de la Dehesa (2006: 2), author’s calculations
a
Average of the GDP per capita growth rate of France, Germany, and Italy
b
Net difference between the UK GDP per capita growth rate and the average of the remaining three largest
EU economies (France, Germany, and Italy)
The data demonstrate the relative economic strength of the UK economy over time
100 3 THE POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRESSIVE ENLARGEMENT. . .
CONCLUSION
This chapter has traced the direction of the EU enlargement policy by
examining it as a political project, through the lens of political sustainability.
Analysis is based on an understanding that not only the adoption of deci-
sions but the extended process of policy implementation is exposed to
reactions, opposition, and negative feedback with the potential to under-
mine policy stability. The chapter addressed several key questions: Why
would the governments of the EU member states continue to support
enlargement to even poorer countries? Is institutional continuity or change
likely to sustain the EU’s continued enlargement? The sustainability litera-
ture (Bardach 1976, 1977; Patashnik 2003, 2008; Lockwood 2013) sug-
gests that reforms and policy decisions are sustainable when they
reconfigure political dynamics, disrupt established patterns of governance,
recast institutions, and generate policy feedback making it costly to reverse
CONCLUSION 103
China
India
Indonesia
Argentina
Turkey
Saudi Arabia
South Korea
Australia
United States
South Africa
Germany
Russia
France
Mexico
Euro Area
United Kingdom
Brazil
Japan
Italy
Canada
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Fig. 3.2 The world’s leading economies G20: Countries with the highest expected
growth lie outside the EU, forecast average growth rates, 2020 (in %) (Data Source:
Trading Economics (online), https://tradingeconomics.com/forecast/gdp-annual-
growth-rate (accessed May 30, 2017))
104 3 THE POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRESSIVE ENLARGEMENT. . .
form of a coalition “exerting strong pressure to restore the status quo ante,”
or perhaps less likely, politicians themselves leading a reversal. Elite dis-
course in the EU abundantly validates those concerns.
The main benefit from applying a sustainability lens to the study of policy
continuity in the process of EU enlargement is the opportunity it offers for
examining the two major cases of ongoing (albeit stalled) EU membership
negotiations: with the countries of the Western Balkans and Turkey.
Although the deterioration of democracy in Turkey has taken place
against the background of ongoing accession negotiations with the EU,
the European elites have abdicated from their long-established role of a
major stakeholder in the process. No new institutions and processes have
been created to ensure that multiple groups acquire an interest in the
outcome. Turkey first applied for EU membership in 1987. It was recog-
nized as a candidate country in 2002 and opened accession negotiations in
2005. Resumption of the process is currently politically impossible. As to
the Western Balkans, the 2003 session of the European Council that
confirmed the accession treaties of eight CEECs also stated that the map
of Europe would be incomplete if the Western Balkans were not a part of
the EU.20 Since then, Slovenia and Croatia have become EU member
states. Five EU members have yet to recognize the Republic of Kosovo,
created in 2008.
The progressive enlargement model is captured also in the EU’s increas-
ing role in the wider Europe as a logical extension of its enlargement policy.
The unprecedented scope and divisive character of the process, continu-
ously differentiating between members and nonmembers, alerted the EU
that its strategies might create uncertainty, competition, and a greater
exposure to threats for countries outside the path to EU accession—pre-
dominantly states with weaker institutional capacity to withstand such
threats. Geographic expansion was no longer only a process of granting
membership to eligible candidates. It became a mechanism for positioning
EU integration within the wider-Europe region. The EU sought to extend a
politically stable and cooperative environment beyond the tier of
the candidates, toward third countries. It addressed that task by creating
institutions that borrowed principles and policy instruments from the
enlargement model—especially those of conditionality and externalization
of governance—for the purpose of ordering its relationships with neighbor-
ing countries.
Progressive enlargement also means a redefinition of the ordering prin-
ciples of the regional system. As the EU has expanded toward the majority
NOTES 105
NOTES
1. The EU was originally created as the European Economic Community
(EEC) in 1957. The European Communities (EC) emerged as a result of
the fusion of the governing institutions of the EEC, Euratom, and the
European Coal and Steel Community (Merger Treaty, 1967). The EU was
created by the Maastricht Treaty (1992) subsuming the existing institutional
configuration.
2. By the late 1990s, enlargement had consolidated into three parallel frame-
works. First, with regard to the Central and East-European countries, can-
didates since the mid-1990s, the EU pursued a gradual, tiered approach. The
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and
Slovenia became EU members in 2004. Bulgaria and Romania joined the
EU in 2007. Second, in 2003, the EU embarked on an integration strategy
toward the Western Balkans. Croatia signed an accession treaty in 2011 and
became an EU member state in July 2013. Third, accession negotiations
with Turkey commenced in 2005 and with Iceland in 2010 (suspended in
2015). The following eight countries are currently in the accession process.
Six candidate countries are in the negotiation process or waiting to start:
Albania, the former Yugoslav, Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia,
106 3 THE POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRESSIVE ENLARGEMENT. . .
and Turkey. Two potential candidates have the prospect of joining when
they are ready: Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo.
3. The complete statement is: “This means that we will refuse to erase our
borders. They are the precondition for our freedom, our democracy and our
solidarity.” “President Sarkozy’s keynote speech on Europe” (Excerpts),
Speech, Toulon, December 1, 2011, Embassy of France in the UK, h
ttps://uk.ambafrance.org/President-Sarkozy-s-keynote-speech (accessed
Sept. 30, 2016).
4. Sigmar Gabriel, “Fighting for a stronger Europe!” (Article by Foreign
Minister Sigmar Gabriel on the 60th Anniversary of the Treaties of Rome)
Rheinischen Post newspaper, March 23, 2017. Available from Federal For-
eign Office, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Infoservice/Presse/In
terviews/2017/170323-BM-RP.html
5. A foundational definition of the classical model of European integration
outlined in the Paris Declaration, May 9, 1950.
6. See European Council, Presidency Conclusions Copenhagen European Coun-
cil (21–22 June) Bulletin EC 6 (Brussels: European Council, 1993). The
1993 policy statement of the Copenhagen European Council were preceded
by the Europe Agreements, signed with individual CEECs in the period
1991–1996 as a form of institutional cooperation, which included areas as
diverse as political dialog, market competition, and the movement of per-
sons, and were designed to prepare a future enlargement of the Union.
7. See also Pezzoli et al. (2009: 337).
8. EU-15 represents the configuration of the EU prior to the eastward enlarge-
ment. It is comprised exclusively of West-European countries.
9. The political criteria for accession stipulate that the countries must have
achieved “stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law,
human rights and respect for and protection of minorities” (European
Council 1993).
10. See the 2003 Accession Treaty of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lith-
uania, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Document
JOL_2003_236_R_0017_01. Official Journal L 236, 23.09.2003, pp. 17–32.
11. Published by the European Commission, December 3, 2003. http://book
shop.europa.eu/en/bundles/posters-cbcWuep2Ixvv8AAAEuyyUD0Ufc/.
Accessed December 12, 2016
12. On the presence of socialization and cognitive mobilization effects in public
opinion in Western Europe, see Guerra and Serricchio (2015).
13. On the evolution of the “constraining dissensus” in the post-Maastricht era,
see Hooghe and Marks (2009).
14. Reference is made to the pluralization of the format of the Eastern Partner-
ship under the European neighborhood Policy whereby Azerbaijan and
Armenia opted out of closer relations with the EU, while a 2016 referendum
BIBLIOGRAPHY 107
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abromeit, John, and Mark Cobb, eds. 2004. Herbert Markuse: A Critical Reader.
London: Routledge.
Armingeon, Klaus, and Besir Ceka. 2014. The Loss of Trust in the European Union
During the Great Recession Since 2007: The Role of Heuristics from the
National Political System. European Union Politics 15 (1): 82–107.
Arthur, Brian. 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence. Ann Arbor: Univer-
sity of Michigan Press.
Bache, Ian. 2008. Europeanization and Multilevel Governance: Cohesion Policy in the
European Union and Britain. Boulder/New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Bailey, Michael, Judith Goldstein, and Barry R. Weingast. 1997. The Institutional
Roots of American Trade Policy: Politics, Coalitions, and International Trade.
World Politics 49: 309–338.
Baldwin, Richard. 2004. Managing EU Enlargement. In Managing European
Union Enlargement, ed. Helge Berger and Thomas Moutos, 11–27. Cam-
bridge/London: The MIT Press.
108 3 THE POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRESSIVE ENLARGEMENT. . .
Baldwin, Richard E., Joseph F. Francois, and Richard Portes. 1997. The Costs and
Benefits of Eastern Enlargement: The Impact on the EU and Central Europe.
Economic Policy 24: 125–176.
Bardach, Eugene. 1976. Policy Termination as a Political Process. Policy Sciences 7:
123–131.
———. 1977. The Implementation Game: What Happens After a Bill Becomes a
Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Becker, Gary. 1983. A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political
Influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 98: 371–401.
Becker, Sascha. 2012. EU Structural Funds: Do They Generate More Growth?.
The CAGE – Chatham House Series, No. 3, December 2012. https://www.
chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/International%
20Economics/1212bp_becker.pdf
Benz, A., and B. Eberlein. 1999. The Europeanization of Regional Policies: Patterns
of Multi-level Governance. Journal of European Public Policy 6 (2): 329–348.
Bindi, Federiga, and Irina Angelescu. 2011a. The Frontiers of Europe: A Transat-
lantic Problem? Rome/Washington, DC: Scuola Superiore della Pubblica
Amministrazione (SSPA)/Brookings Institution Press.
———. 2011b. Conclusion: The European Union Should Again Be ‘Open For
Business’. In The Frontiers of Europe: A Transatlantic Problem? ed. Federiga
Bindi and Irina Angelescu, 272–280. Rome/Washington, DC: Scuola Superiore
della Pubblica Amministrazione (SSPA)/Brookings Institution Press.
Blinder, Alan S. 1997. Is Government Too Political? Foreign Affairs 76 (6):
115–120.
Breuss, Fritz. 2001. Macroeconomic Effects of Enlargement for Old and New
Members. WIFO Working Paper 143. Vienna: WIFO.
Broniatowski, Andre, and Danny Weigel. 2009. Quantitative Analysis of Group
Decision Making for Complex Engineered Systems. SysCon2009 – IEEE Interna-
tional Systems Conference, Vancouver, Canada, March 2009. http://seari.mit.
edu/documents/preprints/BRONIATOWSKI_IEEE09.pdf
Brooks, Clem, and Jeff Manza. 2006. Social Policy Responsiveness in Developed
Democracies. American Sociological Review 71 (3): 474–494.
Buenker, John D., and Edward R. Kantowicz. 1988. Historical Dictionary of the
Progressive Era, 1890–1920. New York: Greenwood.
Campbell, Andrea Louise. 2010. Policy and Reform. (Review of Eric M. Patashnik’s
Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are Enacted.
Princeton University Press, 2008). Journal of Policy History. 22(20): 256–261.
———. 2012. Policy Makes Mass Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 15:
333–351.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 109
Campos, Nauro F., Fabrizio Coricelli, and Luigi Moretti. 2016. Deep Integration
and Economic Growth: Counterfactual Evidence from Europe. Paper Presented at
the 22nd Dubrovnik Economic Conference, June 12–14, 2016. https://www.
hnb.hr/documents/20182/783865/dec-22-campos-coricelli-moretti-growth-
and-EU-Integr.pdf/e375a8b2-1cc2-4b5f-8b29-ada6454f2e1f
Casamatta, George, H. Cremer, and P. Pestieau. 2000. Political Sustainability and
the Design of Social Insurance. Journal of Public Economics 75 (3): 341–364.
Clark, Jennifer, and Susan Christopherson. 2009. Integrating Investment and
Equity: A Critical Regionalist Agenda for Progressive Regionalism. Journal of
Planning Education and Research 28 (3): 341–354.
Cooper, Robert. 2000. The Post-Modern State and the World Order. London:
Demos, The Foreign Policy Centre.
Culpepper, Pepper. 2011. Quiet Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalh, Robert, and Charles Lindblom. 1976. Politics, Economics and Welfare.
Washington, DC: Transaction Publishers.
de la Dehesa, Guillermo. 2006. Winners and Losers in Globalization. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Diez Medrano, Juan. 2003. Framing Europe: Attitudes to European Integration in
Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Etzioni, Amitai. 2004. From Empire to Community: A New Approach to Interna-
tional Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
European Commission. 1997. Agenda 2000: For a Stronger and Wider Union,
COM/97/2000 final. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the Euro-
pean Communities.
European Commission. 2004. Flash Eurobarometer No. 257: “Views on European
Union Enlargement”. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_257_en.
pdf
European Commission. Directorate-General for Economic and Financial
Affairs. 2009. Five Years of an Enlarged EU Economic Achievements and
Challenges. European Economy 1/2009. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/a
rchives/2012/5years/documents/impact/publication14078_en.pdf
European Council. 1993. Presidency Conclusions Copenhagen European Council.
Bulletin EC, 6, June 21–22. Brussels: European Council.
———. 2001. Presidency Conclusions. Brussels, 15 December. Annex 1, SN 300/1/
01/REV1.
Fung, Archon, Erik Olin Wright, and Rebecca Abers. 2003. Deepening Democracy:
Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. London:
Verso.
Garry, John, and James Tilley. 2009. Attitudes to European Integration: Investi-
gating East–West Heterogeneity. Journal of European Integration 31 (5):
537–549.
110 3 THE POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRESSIVE ENLARGEMENT. . .
Giddens, Anthony. 2003. The Progressive Manifesto: New Ideas for the Centre-Left.
Cambridge: Polity.
Gingrich, Jane, and Ben Ansell. 2012. Preferences in Context Micro Preferences,
Macro Contexts, and the Demand for Social Policy. Comparative Political Stud-
ies 45 (12): 1624–1654.
G€oncz, Borbála. 2015. People’s Perceptions of the European Union and the Effects
of the Crisis: A Persistent East-West Divide? In The European Union Beyond the
Crisis: Evolving Governance, Contested Policies, and Disenchanted Publics,
ed. Boyka Stefanova, 295–317. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Grabbe, Heather. 2003. Europeanization Goes East: Power and Uncertainty in the
EU Accession Process. In The Politics of Europeanization, ed. Kevin Featherstone
and Claudio Radaelli, 303–327. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2006. The EU’s Transformative Power: Europeanization Through Condi-
tionality in Central and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Guerra, Simona, and Fabio Serricchio. 2015. Identity and Economic Rationality:
Explaining Attitudes Towards the EU in a Time of Crisis. In The European Union
Beyond the Crisis: Evolving Governance, Contested Policies, and Disenchanted
Publics, ed. Boyka Stefanova, 269–294. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Haas, Ernst. 1968. The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces
1950–1957. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hartman, Chester W. 2002. Between Eminence & Notoriety: Four Decades of Rad-
ical Urban Planning. New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Hayes, Michael. 2001. The Limits of Policy Change: Incrementalism, Worldview, and
the Rule of Law. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Hettne, Bjèorn, Andr^as Inotai, and Osvaldo Sunkel. 1999. Globalism and the New
Regionalism. New York: St. Martin’s.
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2009. A Post-functionalist Theory of Integra-
tion: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Journal of
Political Science 39 (3): 1–23.
Ilonszki, Gabriella. 2009. National Discontent and EU Support in Central and
Eastern Europe. Europe-Asia Studies 61: 1041–1057.
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 2003. The Poverty of Progressivism: The Future of American Democ-
racy in a Time of Liberal Decline. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Jacobs, Jorg, and Detlef Pollack. 2006. Support Based on Values? Attitudes Toward
the EU in Eleven Postcommunist Societies. In Public Opinion, Party Competi-
tion, and the European Union in Post-communist Europe, ed. Robert
Rohrschneider and Stephen Whitefield. New York/Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kay, Adrian. 2006. The Dynamics of Public Policy: Theory and Evidence. London:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 111
Nugent, N. 2006. The Government and Politics of the European Union. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Olmi, G. 1978. Aspects institutionnels et juridiques de l’élargissement. L’impact sur
les institutions et le droit des Communautés européennes. In A Community of
Twelve? The Impact of Further Enlargement on the European Communities,
ed. W. Wallace and I. Herreman. Bruges: De Tempel, Tempelhof.
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of
Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Patashnik, Eric. 2003. After the Public Interest Prevails: The Political Sustainability
of Policy Reform. Governance 16 (2): 203–234.
———. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are
Enacted. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Peterson, John. 2001. The Choice for EU Theorists: Establishing a Common
Framework for Analysis. European Journal of Political Research 39: 289–318.
Pezzoli, Keith, Michael Hibbard, and Laura Huntoon. 2009. Introduction to
Symposium: Is Progressive Regionalism an Actionable Framework for Critical
Planning Theory and Practice? Journal of Planning Education and Research 28:
336–340. doi:10.1177/0739456X08329711.
Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State? New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
———. 1996. The Path to European Integration. Comparative Political Studies 29
(2): 123–163.
———. 2000. Path Dependence, Increasing Returns, and the Study of Politics.
American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251–267.
———. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton/
Oxford: Princeton University Press.
———. 2005. The Study of Policy Development. Journal of Policy History 17 (1):
34–51.
Rehm, Philipp. 2011. Social Policy by Popular Demand. World Politics 63 (2):
271–299.
Risse, Thomas. 2010. A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and
Public Spheres. London/Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Rohrschneider, Robert, and Stephen Whitefield. 2006. Political Parties, Public
Opinion and European Integration in Post-communist Countries: The State of
the Art. European Union Politics 7 (1): 141–160.
Rowlands, Carl. 2010. Europe’s Periphery: The Economies of Central and Eastern
Europe Have Become Peripheral Dependencies of the Core EU States. Sound-
ings 46: 112–123.
Saeki, Manabu. 2010. The Other Side of Gridlock: Policy Stability and
Supermajoritarianism in U.S. Lawmaking. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 113
Sanchez-Cuenca, Ignacio. 2000. The Political Basis of Support for European Inte-
gration. European Union Politics 1 (2): 147–171.
Scharpf, Fritz. 1997. Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in
Policy Research. Oxford: Westview Press.
———. 2000. Institutions in Comparative Policy Research. Comparative Political
Studies 33 (6–7): 762–790.
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1935. Politics, Pressures and the Tariff. New York:
Prentice-Hall.
———. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2014. European Integration in the Euro Crisis: The Limits
of Postfunctionalism. Journal of European Integration 36 (3): 321–337.
Schimmelfennig, Frank, and Ulrich Sedelmeier. 2002. Theorizing EU Enlargement:
Research Focus, Hypotheses, and the State of Research. Journal of European
Public Policy 9 (4): 500–528.
———, eds. 2005. The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Schimmelfennig, Frank, S. Stefan Engert, and Heiko Knobel. 2006. International
Socialization in Europe: European Organizations, Political Conditionality, and
Democratic Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schneider, Christina. 2009. Conflict, Negotiation and European Union Enlarge-
ment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schoyen, Mi Ah., and Furio Stamati. 2013. The Political Sustainability of the
NDC Pension Model: The Cases of Sweden and Italy. European Journal of Social
Security 15 (1): 79–101.
Scott, W. Richard. 2001. Institutions and Organizations. London: Sage
Publications.
Sedelmeier, Ulrich. 2005. The Path to Eastern Enlargement. Manchester: Manches-
ter University Press.
———. 2014. Anchoring Democracy from Above? The European Union and
Democratic Backsliding in Hungary and Romania. Journal of Common Market
Studies 52 (1): 105–121.
Smith, Julie. 2017. The UK’s Journeys Into and Out of the EU: Destinations
Unknown. London/New York: Routledge.
Stefanova, Boyka. 2006a. The Political Economy of Outsourcing in the European
Union and the East-European Enlargement. Business and Politics 8 (2): 1–43.
———. 2006b. Regional Integration as a System of Conflict Resolution: The
European Experience. World Affairs 169 (2): 81–93.
———. 2016. Returning to Europe as Euroskeptics? Revisiting Political Trust and
Public Support for European Integration in Central and Eastern Europe. Croa-
tian Yearbook on European Law and Policy (CYELP) 12: 275–297.
114 3 THE POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRESSIVE ENLARGEMENT. . .
Streeck, Wolfgang, and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2005. Beyond Continuity: Institu-
tional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Szczerbiak, Aleks, and Paul Taggart. 2008. Introduction: Opposing Europe? The
Politics of Euroscepticism in Europe. In Opposing Europe? The Comparative
Party Politics of Euroscepticism, ed. Aleks Szczerbiak and Paul Taggart, 1–15.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
United Nations. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development: Our Common Future. UN Documents. http://www.un-doc
uments.net/our-common-future.pdf
Vachudova, Milada, and Liesbet Hooghe. 2009. Postcommunist Politics in a Mag-
netic Field: How Transition and EU Accession Structure Party Competition on
European Integration. Comparative European Politics 7 (2): 179–212.
Wæver, Ole. 1996. Europe’s Three Empires: A Watsonian Interpretation of the
Post-Wall European Security. In International Society After the Cold War: Anar-
chy and Order Reconsidered, ed. Rick Fawn and Jeremy Larkins, 220–260.
Basingstoke/London; New York: Macmillan Press; St. Martin’s Press.
———. 1997. Imperial Metaphors: Emerging European Analogies to Pre-Nation-
State Imperial Systems. In Geopolitics in Post-Wall Europe: Security, Territory and
Identity, ed. Ola Tunander, Pavel Baev, and Victoria Ingrid Einage, 59–93.
London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
———. 2003. Discursive Approaches. In European Integration Theory, ed. Antje
Wiener and Thomas Diez. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, James. 1973. Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books.
CHAPTER 4
INTRODUCTION
Early regionalist theories of the post-Cold War period have studied new
regionalism as an open and multidimensional phenomenon (Bliss and
Russett 1998). Similarly, the basic assumption of European regionalism
has been that of an ever-expanding system, conceptualized as a series of
concentric circles around the EU (Wæver 1996), a nascent security com-
munity for the wider Europe (Adler and Barnett 1998), a regional and an
international society of states (Buzan 2004; Stavridis 2001), or a benevolent
empire (Wæver 1997; Zielonka 2006). Introducing a broader regional
frame for the EU’s definition as a regionalist project provides new evidence
suggesting that the EU’s growing centrality as a project of European
regionalism displays certain variation according to its demonstration and
emulation effects on the wider Europe (Risse 2016), processes of expansion
and resistance to European integration, and capacity to affect nonmembers
through norm diffusion and economic competitiveness (Smith 2005).
The EU’s relationship with its broader environment provides with an
opportunity to explore the impact of European integration beyond its
membership base (Friis and Murphy 1999). The political effects of region-
alism have been uncritically assessed as rather positive (Bergsten 1997;
Solingen 2015, among others). Regional structures are identified as poten-
tial tools for conflict resolution, reconciliation, and region building:
INTRODUCTION 117
preventing another war between France and Germany and creating positive
interdependencies in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, or the Western Balkans
(Ohanyan 2015; Stefanova 2011). In all these cases, the development of
institutional links among former antagonists has had significant stabilizing
effects. Positive institutionalist influences on nonmembers—defined in
terms of attractiveness and state preferences to establish relationships of
proximity, association, and membership in international institutions—sim-
ilarly tend to be more frequently assumed, rather than empirically tested in
scholarly research (but see Mattli 1999; Jacoby 2006).
The reemergence of borders as a result of the EU’s enlargement policy
challenges established understandings of the classic model of EU regional-
ism as an open ever-growing regional institution. In the process of the
2004–2013 East-European enlargement, the EU’s eastern periphery
emerged as a mosaic of relations of varying proximity, a gray area of shifting
foreign policy preferences of candidate countries and neighbors, and a
meeting place of influential regional actors and rival regionalist projects.
Such developments have brought geopolitics back into the study of post-
Cold War European regionalism and of the EU as a model regional system.
Conscious of the complexity of its outlying environment, the EU for-
mulated the ENP as the principal policy template for managing its proximity
relations beyond enlargement.2 Its Eastern segment, examined here, com-
plements enlargement by advancing a distinct model of good neighborly
relations designed to create a ring of friends adjacent to the EU borders.
The ENP functions as a system of foreign policy and market liberalization
instruments, and promotes standards of good governance, the rule of law,
and respect for human rights in the neighboring countries (Noutcheva et al.
2013). From a dynamic perspective, however, the EU’s relationship with
the periphery is not only one of progressive socialization and externalization
of EU governance. As this chapter demonstrates, in parallel to the trajectory
of progressive drawing of the outlying periphery closer to the values and
governance mechanisms of European integration, the ENP recasts EU
regionalism in a new perspective, that of pluralization of interests, compe-
tition, and geopolitical shifts.
The evolving rationale of the EU’s neighborhood policy to accommo-
date mutual interests through diversification of its governance tools and
scaling back its shared policy templates and institutional depth warrants
further investigation. On the one hand, as an arrangement widely approx-
imated to an international regime (Krasner 1983: 2), ENP illuminates most
of the issues of the effectiveness of international institutions vis-à-vis
118 4 THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: COMPETING. . .
benefits from a natural strategic annex. The East has no fixed politically
determined demarcation. Depending on political dynamics, the East may be
defined either as a potential extension of Europe or as a geopolitical frontier
depending on political dynamics. According to Cohen (2003: 152), the
geopolitical border between Maritime Europe and the Eurasian Heartland
has fluctuated historically across a broad zone of contention within Central
and Eastern Europe. The geographic markers have remained constant;
however, the historically valid borders of the region have been set according
to a changing power distribution between regional and superpowers and
their respective alliances. Thus, the post-WWII borders of the East–West
division of Europe emerged as a result of Soviet advances to the Elbe River
in 1945. The end of the Cold War was marked by a shift of the border
eastward in the process of the Euro-Atlantic integration of Eastern Europe.
Implosive developments in nation building, institutionalization of interna-
tional cooperation, and regional integration during the post-Cold War era
have led to a more dynamic, constantly evolving categorization of the
cohesiveness of regional configurations.
Regional institutions mark the highest level of structuring relations and
constitute the core of regionalism, versus the spontaneous creation of
cohesiveness based on micro-level regional transactions, conceptualized as
“regionalization” (Hettne 2005). The economic and political centerpiece
of European order, the Euro-Atlantic institutions and their interactions with
the outlying periphery, represent the most advanced level of regional coop-
eration and the foundation of European order. The latter has evolved from a
set of selective, spatially and functionally contained, interactions toward
comprehensive and nonexclusive ones. Similarly, as the EU expands toward
the majority of countries within the geographical limits of Europe,
European integration has led to new forms of political and territorial orga-
nization that transcends anarchy in a functional way. This process continues
to evolve. Cohen (2003: 152) contends that the ultimate definition of
Europe’s border will depend “on the force that the West can and wishes
to bring to bear, and on the success with which Eastern European countries
manage their new market economies.” Institutions and the governance they
provide are therefore critical to the definition of regions and the type of
regionalism they represent.
According to Bergsten (1997), structuring regional relations along the
premises of trade liberalization is likely to establish an open model of
regionalism. One of the advantages of such a system of regional relations
is that it often has demonstration effects. Regional initiatives can accustom
122 4 THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: COMPETING. . .
Ukraine occupies a unique place in Europe, with links both to the EU and
the former post-Soviet space. As an observer to the Russia-sponsored Com-
monwealth of Independent States, Ukraine participated in the free trade
area created by its members in 2011 (CISFTA), and would have been a
critically important member of the Russia-centered Eurasian Customs
Union (CU; Kiryukhin 2016). Ukraine was also a founding partner in the
ENP and the EaP, and between 2007 and 2011 negotiated an AA, includ-
ing a DCFTA, with the EU. Trade analyses demonstrate that, given the
trend of increasing EU-Ukraine foreign trade and economic cooperation
since the 1990s, Ukraine’s opportunities and benefits from trade creation
and economic growth lie with establishing a free trade area with the EU,
rather than participation in Russia-centered Eurasian integration. According
to Movchan and Giucci (2011), joining the Eurasian CU (originally signed
between Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan) would have trade diversion
effects on Ukraine, reducing aggregate welfare by 0.5% in the medium
term and by 3.7% in the long term.14 In comparison, a general
EU-Ukraine free trade area without deeper regulatory and positive market
creation measures would increase welfare in Ukraine by 1.3% in the medium
term and by 4.6% in the long term. A DCFTA would lead to welfare gains of
4.3% in the medium term and of 11.8% in the long term (Movchan and
Giucci 2011: 11).
Ukraine’s choice to follow a European perspective, however, has had
significant effects on the configuration of regionalism in the wider
Europe.15 The process that led to the signature of the AA placed ENP in
a new setting. It introduced Russia as an outside actor, along with CISFTA
and the then Eurasian CU that the EaP and the respective DCFTAs made
quasi-redundant.16 The incompatibility of the two frameworks for trade and
market integration acquired political significance in the process that led to
the signature of the EU-Ukraine AA.
Although Russia had not raised specific concerns during the initial stage
of AA negotiations, it stood firmly against the EaP countries’ closer coop-
eration and integration with the EU. Originally, Russia’s ruling elite
believed that the gradual integration of the EaP countries with the EU
was an unrealistic scenario and perceived the EaP as an empty project.
Progress in the negotiations between the EU and four partner countries,
namely Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova, and Georgia in 2013, resulted in a
132 4 THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: COMPETING. . .
“During recent years, Armenia, with the support of European partners held
a number of important institutional reforms. And today’s Armenia, in this
sense, is considerably a more effective and competitive state than years ago.
We intend to continue these reforms also in the future.”22 While formally
expressing a commitment to cooperation, the underlying political message
of Armenia’s changing institutional preferences is that EU-style regionalism
is not a self-evident political choice for the wider Europe.
The Riga Summit held in May 2015 was supposed to further advance the
EaP. Instead, the summit saw a reduced number of EaP partner countries
eligible to adopt the institutional model of association. Azerbaijan declined
an EU-based AA. In the wake of the Summit, the EU opened negotiations
with Armenia on a new legally binding agreement outside the EaP.23
Internal divisions emerged among the EU member states as to whether
the policy had to be expanded in order to neutralize weakening commit-
ments, or scaled back to reflect the preferences of the eastern partners.24
Most significantly, the Riga Summit did not state a commitment to the
European perspective of Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, although the
Vilnius Summit prior to that had recognized “the European aspirations
and the European choice” of some of the partner countries.25
In addition, the EU sought relative gains by accomplishing rapproche-
ment with Belarus and Azerbaijan, although both countries had preferred a
closer relationship with Russia.26 The EU opened talks on visa liberalization
and a mobility partnership with Belarus as a reward for its role toward
resolving the Ukrainian crisis. It sought to keep Azerbaijan as a partner
signaling its appreciation for Azerbaijan’s agreement to participate in the
Southern Gas Corridor designed as an alternative source of natural gas
alleviating the EU’s dependence of imports from Russia. In February
2016, the EU ended asset freeze and travel ban sanctions against 170 indi-
vidual and three entities in Belarus.
Originally, the European Parliament (EP) had assumed that the AAs and
DCFTAs concluded under the EaP would not undermine the long-
standing trade relations which EaP countries maintained in the region and
suggested that such agreements should not be seen as incompatible with the
EU’s vision for its neighborhood. By the time of the 2013 Vilnius Summit,
an EP resolution defined the EaP as a normative and civilizational choice.
The resolution stated that “an Association Agreement with the EU entails
political and legal reforms conducive to strengthening the rule of law,
reducing corruption and securing greater respect for human rights; [. . .]
joining the [Eurasian] Customs Union, on the contrary, does not involve
134 4 THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: COMPETING. . .
35)28 was revived in Soviet President Gorbachev’s speeches from the late
1980s and later during President Putin’s first term of office. The concept
was further developed by Sergey Karaganov as a common economic and
cultural space blending the west and the east of Europe into a shared
civilizational project.29 Similarly, the then Prime Minister Putin outlined a
vision for a common regional market from “Vladivostok to Lisbon,” as
published in the German Daily Süddeutsche Zeitung.30 The rationale of such
projects is securing Russia’s unproblematic acceptance by the West: being
treated as an equal and allowed to share in the market, technology, and
opportunities of regional integration in Europe, while pursuing its own
integrationist projects in the Europe-Eurasia region. By 2013, the EU and
Russia had developed a high level of economic interdependence. The EU
accounted for about 50% of Russia’s foreign trade. It was dependent on
Russia for about 30% of its energy supplies (Trenin 2015: 4).
In the context of political developments pertaining to the ENP and
Ukraine, a deteriorating relationship with the EU due to the use of energy
exports as a political tool, and a return to revisionist foreign policy thinking,
Russia moved assertively to expand Eurasian cooperation. It continued to
draw on the EU experience toward the actual modeling of Eurasian inte-
gration on the EU system.
Following the statement by the EU heads of state or government in the
context of the Ukrainian crisis of March 2014, negotiations on a new
EU-Russia Agreement were suspended. Meetings at the highest political
level (summits) were suspended as well. Furthermore, the desirable degree
of engagement with Russia became a contentious issue for the EU and its
neighborhood policies. The member states hold different visions of their
relations with Russia and pursue their own business interests (House of
Lords 2015: Q 112). Several tiers of countries have emerged in the process
of ENP implementation. Germany, Italy, and France—countries with sig-
nificant economic stakes in a good relationship with Russia—are interested
in maintaining an inclusive neighborhood policy. At the other end, Poland
and the Baltic States remain deeply suspicious of a resurgent Russia.
In-between are tiers of member states, such as the Mediterranean, Eastern
European, and candidate countries in the Western Balkans representing
weaker states that could be manipulated and coerced (Leonard and Popescu
2007). Russia has sought to pursue bilateral relations with the different tiers
of EU member states under the pretext that the division of competences
between the EU institutions and the member states complicates coopera-
tion (House of Lords 2015: Q 7).
THE EU-RUSSIA RELATIONSHIP: ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS AND. . . 137
Internal changes within Russia also account for the decline of the rela-
tionship. In contrast to the emulation of European norms and values, typical
of Russia’s behavior during the 1990s, Russian elites increasingly considered
themselves independent of European tutelage. Russia has sought to project
the image of a global player apart from Europe, not only according to
economic and geopolitical interests but also in terms of cultural identity
(House of Lords 2015: Chapter 4). Such views reflect a long-standing
debate within Russian society, with one school of thought seeing Russia
as an integral part of Europe and another substantial body of opinion seeing
Europe as “the other,” a rival or alternative pole of civilization. Russia’s
power, interests, and identity perceptions overlap in concepts that expand
its traditional policies toward the “near abroad” into the broader zone of
“Russkiy Mir,” and ultimately the neo-imperial doctrine of “Eurasianism”
(Laruelle 2015: 9, 2008).31 Changes in Russia’s model of capitalism,
involvement of the security apparatus at all levels of government, state
manipulation of the economy, and approaches to obtaining geopolitical
gains, especially through the natural gas trade with Europe, have made
economic cooperation with the EU more problematic. Russia’s foreign
policy increasingly reflects an ideology based on Russian nationalism blend-
ing ethnic, religious, and socially conservative values. The Russian Ortho-
dox Church has come increasingly to the fore as the symbol and bastion of
these values (Galeotti and Bowen 2014). “Eurasianism” therefore blends
nationalism with anti-Western mobilization, communitarianism, and social
conservatism to emerge as an ideological foundation of Russia’s strategic
relations with the EU.
The ensuing model of Russia’s foreign policy no longer seeks to get
acceptance from the West. Trenin (2009) has conceptualized this model of
regional relations in terms of neo-revisionism. Lane (2015) argues that
Russia is likely to continue to resist a European model of development,
opting instead for a neo-imperial policy toward its “near abroad” and a
model of slowly modernizing statist capitalism in the Russia-Eurasia region.
Accordingly, observers conclude that a return to previously established
forms of communication with the EU is no longer possible (House of
Lords 2015: Chapter 3).32 However, few studies have focused on the effects
of Russia’s distancing from the West on the model of regionalism
established by the EU for the wider Europe. Shedding more light on
these developments is important also in view of the fact that Russia’s
developmental and civilizational project of statist capitalism, Orthodox
Christianity, and Eurasianism is being increasingly projected into the
138 4 THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: COMPETING. . .
The meeting place between the EU and the EEU provides evidence of all
aspects of the geopolitical repositioning of European regionalism in the
process of interaction with its environment: shifting borders resulting in
relative gains and losses, competing notions for the organization of regional
space, and changing power distribution in the wider Europe-Eurasia region
as the EEU projects its impact on a growing number of regional players.
It may be argued that Eurasian regionalism became relevant to the
process of regionalization and regionalism in the wider Europe as a result
of the EU’s neighborhood policies. Its evolution has taken place predom-
inantly as an alternative model of European regionalism—competing or
complementary (Sakwa 2016; van der Togt et al. 2015)—rather than as a
locus of autonomous processes of trade creation and deep institutionaliza-
tion. Regional integration, as the EU experience shows, has an internal and
an external dimension. Its impact is measured not only in terms of internal
cohesiveness, economic performance, and shared identities but also
according to regional positioning. Applied with regard to the EEU, such
premises refer to the maintenance of numerous overlapping integration
projects in the post-Soviet space, such as the Commonwealth of Indepen-
dent States and its free trade area, CISFTA, the Union State, the Eurasian
Economic Community, and the Customs Union. Internally, these projects
have done little in terms of trade creation and interdependence. However,
externally they have created a distinct geopolitical cluster in the Europe-
Eurasia region. This pattern of geopolitical consolidation is at the origin of
the external dimension of Eurasian regionalism.
The timeframe of the EEU begins with the idea for the creation of a
Eurasian Union originally advanced by the President of Kazakhstan
Nursultan Nazarbayev.33 The project of a “union” did not gain political
salience at the time, despite the presence of diverse regional initiatives
launched by Russia for the economic and political ordering of the post-
Soviet space (with the exception of the Baltic States).
MEET EURASIAN REGIONALISM: RIVAL REGIONALIST THINKING IN. . . 139
for oil and gas and a common market for services will not take place until
2025, and a common market for electricity has been postponed until 2019.
Although it is regarded as a Russia-dominated statist modernization
project, the EEU’s performance does not directly serve developmental
purposes. Russia accounts for nearly 86% of the economic potential of the
EEU. Commercial exchange between the EEU’s founding countries com-
prised only 12% of their total trade in 2012 and 2013 when the creation of
an economic union was prepared (Jarosiewicz and Fischer 2015). Trade
data reveal that in 2013 the member states of the Common Economic
Space accounted for 51% of the foreign trade of Belarus, 18% of the foreign
trade of Kazakhstan, and only 7.5% of the foreign trade of Russia. While
intra-regional trade expanded in 2009–2011 (initially outside the CU
framework), in 2012 mutual trade experienced a 3% decline, and a further
12% decrease during the first half of 2014 (Popescu 2014: 13). In the first
six months of 2015, Belarus trade with the EEU fell by $2.5 billion (or by
one-third in relative terms) vis-à-vis trade during the first half of 2014.
Recent trade dynamics reinforce such divergent trends in bilateral flows.
Growth in the Russia-Kazakhstan trade may be contrasted with a relative
decrease in Russia-Belarus and Belarus-Kazakhstan bilateral trade flows.
Data presented in Table 4.1. demonstrate that the trade creation effects of
the EEU are not significant.
A plausible explanation for such trends lies with the hydrocarbons trade
(historically accounting for around 40% of their mutual trade) that is
exempted from tariff elimination, similarly to other primary products and
strategic resources exported from Belarus and Kazakhstan. By comparison,
intra-regional exports as a share of total EU exports have varied on average
between 68.3% (in 2002) and 62.0% (in 2013). Intra-EU exports in 2013
ranging between 83.0%, (highest for Slovakia) and 42.6% (lowest for Malta)
significantly exceeding the levels of interdependence in the EEU.36
Such comparisons suggest that the interests of the EEU partners are not
mutually compatible and overlap in only limited areas. While all of them
seek improvement of their bargaining position vis-à-vis the West, the sheer
power asymmetry among them determines that all relationships, including
in the CU, are systemically biased toward Russia’s preferences and global
ambitions. Both Belarus and Kazakhstan place more emphasis on the eco-
nomic, rather than political, nature of the EEU as a source of investment
and energy resources, short of requirements for economic reforms. At the
time of the signature of the EEU agreement, Kazakhstan insisted on
maintaining an economic designation in the title, in line with its original
MEET EURASIAN REGIONALISM: RIVAL REGIONALIST THINKING IN. . . 141
Table 4.1 Trade within the Eurasian Economic Union (in million $)
January 2014–
January 2015–
Year-on-year
Year-on-year
Year-on-year
change (%)
change (%)
change (%)
Share EEU
Share EEU
June 2014
June 2015
Country
2015
2016
(%)
(%)
Belarus 7,991.20 5,312.80 66.48 10,998.09 73.0 24.2 1,264.20 86.4 23.8
Russia 18,345.20 14,417.60 78.59 28,718.56 77.9 63.3 3,420.53 81.5 64.5
Kazakhstan 3,540.80 2,674.30 75.52 4,886.81 68.3 10.8 508.60 76.0 9.6
Armenia 141.10 92.90 65.83 236.60 73.0 0.5 41.05 197.1 0.8
Kyrgyzstan 226.50 162.90 71.92 539.76 84.7 1.2 66.45 84.7 1.3
EEU trade 30,245.00 22,660.50 74.92 45,379.82 75.0 100.0 5,300.89 82.9 100.0
Notes: Dotted line marks the distinction between trade within the EEU (2015–2016) and 2014 data based
on the Customs Union between Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia
Source: Data in EuroBelarus, various dates (Eurobelarus.info), Eurasian Economic Commission (2015,
2016 quarterly data), and Popescu (2014)
CONCLUSION
This chapter has examined the geopolitical dimension of European region-
alism reflected in the institutional evolution of the ENP and its outcomes in
three related frameworks: the EaP and signature of the association agree-
ments, the EU-Russia relationship, and the competing regionalism of
the EEU.
As the chapter has demonstrated, it is analytically appropriate and empir-
ically useful to examine the external dimension of EU-centered regionalism
through a geopolitical lens. A geopolitical approach situates the comparison
between European and Eurasian regionalisms with regard to their external
environment and measures the success or failure of performance in terms of
relative positioning and external impact. It would be too simplistic to
compare a West-centric neoliberal internationalist paradigm and nearly 60
years of progressive institutionalization that underlies the EU’s role in the
broader regional system to Russia’s neo-imperial ambitions for Eurasian
regionalism that has yet to develop a working institutional architecture
beyond institutional templates that formally mimic the EU. Furthermore,
the institutional evolution of the EEU does not conform to traditional
notions of regionalism, interdependence, or regional cooperation. Still,
Russia-sponsored regional integration initiatives in Eurasia are a fact (and
have been), regardless of their incompleteness, backwardness, and disguised
revisionist and coercive nature, and represent a visible geopolitical entity.
Developments in the “shared” EU/EEU neighborhood suggest that the
two regionalist projects have positioned themselves as alternatives, despite
apparent differences in their institutional depth and value systems.
The broader consequence of such nominally “competing regionalisms”
has been an altered rationale of the EU’s relationship with its outlying
periphery to the East and changes to the normative foundation of its
neighborhood policies as the substance of the EU-centered European
regionalism. From a model of open regionalism, the EU has positioned
itself as an exclusive trade arrangement for the wider Europe. It has
redefined itself in geopolitical terms to reflect power competition and
civilizational choice: from a neoliberal internationalist to a neorealist
146 4 THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: COMPETING. . .
project; and from a system open to neighbors with shared interests and
values (seeking absolute gains) to one preventing competitors from increas-
ing their influence (relative gains). From a project of “low politics”
implemented through sectoral governance and market integration, the
EaP has emerged as a “high politics” project.
By removing the possibility for overlapping membership in territorially
defined regional blocs, the EU has diminished the significance of notions
such as “shared” neighborhood and “common” spaces. Such developments
have the potential to reverse long-standing conceptualizations of the wider
Europe as a “nascent security community” (Adler 1998).
The principal conclusion that may be drawn from this research is that the
EU is moving away from a model of open regionalism and a normative
power that it has worked hard to establish for itself (Manners 2002, 2006).
The implementation of a neighborhood policy has led to the restructuring
of territorial space that brings EU-based regionalism closer to traditional
notions of power distribution and structural interdependence.
As the scope of the EU-Eurasian regionalism remains uncertain due to
geopolitical factors not amenable to short-term change, the corrective
mechanism for maintaining a model of open European regionalism lies
within its global embeddedness. The process leading to the creation of a
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and cooperation on a
transregional scale with influential global actors, such as China, Canada,
and Japan, provides an opportunity to transcend the intransigence of geo-
politics by creating new structural interdependencies with global relevance.
NOTES
1. The lack of analytical depth in a potential EU/EEU comparison, while
obvious, is not an exception. Comparative analyses of regional systems
relative to the EU rarely reach meaningful conclusions as the level of region-
alism in other regions displays significant differences in terms of depth and
regional cohesiveness, although institutionally regional cooperation in a
variety of regions bears important similarities to the EU model. See B€ orzel
and Risse (2016a).
2. The European Neighborhood Policy governs the EU’s relations with
16 neighboring countries located along its eastern and southern dimension.
The Eastern partner countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia,
Moldova, and Ukraine. Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco,
Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia belong to the southern dimension. Russia is not
NOTES 147
part of the ENP but takes part in cross-border cooperation including ENP
members.
3. The five members of the EEU, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus (founding
members), Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan cover 86% of the territory of the former
Soviet Union. See Eurasian Economic Commission (2015).
4. This section refers extensively to European Commission (2000).
5. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between the EU and
Russia was signed in 1994. The EU-Ukraine PCA was signed in 1998.
6. Such requirements were part of the Barcelona Process and the Mediterra-
nean Partnership concluded with countries in North Africa and the
Middle East.
7. The East-European partner countries under ENP are Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon,
Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia belong to the southern dimen-
sion. Russia is not part of the ENP but takes part in cross-border cooperation
including ENP members.
8. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Advisor to President Carter
address at the Riga Summit, June 7, 2002. http://www.rigasummit.lv/en/?
id¼6page¼151
9. These countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and
Ukraine. Belarus has remained outside most of the ENP structures.
10. The Union for the Mediterranean promotes economic integration across
15 neighbors to the EU’s south in North Africa, the Middle East, and the
Balkans region. It relaunched the former Barcelona Process to operationalize
a distinct regional approach to problem-solving and political reform as a
mechanism of regional stability without specific claims to regional
cohesiveness.
11. On the absolute versus relative gains structure of international cooperation,
see Grieco (1988).
12. The EU implements The Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity
with the Southern Mediterranean Partners as a policy framework with regard
to the southern tier of the ENP.
13. Such benefits include financial assistance, market access, visa-free travel,
political legitimization of the ruling elite through dialogue with Europe,
and regional stabilization, among others.
14. Trade diversion effects are due to the higher import tariffs in the Eurasian
Customs Union than those applied by Ukraine under the WTO regime.
15. The EU began negotiating an Association Agreement (AA) with Ukraine in
2007, having concluded a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement in 1994
(in force since 1998). Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova signed AAs, including
DCFTAs, with the EU on June 27, 2014.
16. Moldova and Belarus are also members of CISFTA.
148 4 THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: COMPETING. . .
26. Ibid. See also Euractiv, “EU Ends Belarus Sanctions,” February 25, 2016.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/eu-ends-belarus-
sanctions/
27. European External Action Service, “EU-Russia Common Spaces,” available
at: http://eeas.europa.eu/russia/ common_spaces/index_en.htm
28. “From the Atlantic to the Urals” was the French version of Europe’s security
order. In President Charles De Gaulle’s words, the task of post-World War II
Europe was to guarantee “the security of all nations between the Atlantic and
the Urals.” See Charles De Gaulle, “A Concert of European Nations,”
reprinted from “Europe,” Memoirs of Hope: Renewal and Endeavor in
Nelsen and Stubb (1998).
29. Sergey Karaganov is Dean of the School of World Economics and Interna-
tional Relations at the National Research University–Higher School of
Economics and Honorary Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on
Foreign and Defense Policy.
30. See commentary in Der Spiegel, November 26, 2010, “The World from
Berlin,” (online). http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-world
-from-berlin-putin-s-free-trade-proposal-is-just-a-smokescreen-a-731370.
html
31. “Russkiy Mir,” or “Russian World,” is also a reinvented concept. Originally
focused on reconnecting with Russia’s historical origins, reconciliation, and
defense of the Russian diaspora in the post-Soviet space, the concept moved
to acquire a distinct political purpose of reestablishing Russia’s civilizational
identity in its “near abroad,” regional, and global policies. It emerged as a
means of public diplomacy and soft power for reengagement with the rest of
the world (Laruelle 2015: 13). Eurasianism is an ideology that posits the
greatness of Russia-Asia that can only exist as an empire (Laruelle 2008).
32. Testimony by Fyodor Lukyanov, Chairman of the Council on Foreign and
Defense Policy and Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs.
33. The integration project for a Eurasian Union, proposed by N. Nazarbayev in
1994, laid the foundation for the development of further integration in the
post-Soviet space, such as the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC),
the Customs Union, and the Common Economic Space, all preceding the
launch of the Eurasian Economic Union as of January 1, 2015.
34. On October 4, 2011, the then Prime Minister Putin published an influential
article in Izvestia (a Russian Daily newspaper) on the launch of the Common
Economic Space, followed by endorsements by Belarus’ President
Lukashenko and Kazakhstan’s President Nazarbayev. These articles gener-
ated a new integrationist-regionalist discourse in the public space in the three
countries. The text of President Putin’s Izvestia article is available at http://
www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/d-ru/dv/d
ru_2013_0320_06_/dru_2013_0320_06_en.pdf
150 4 THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: COMPETING. . .
35. The treaty establishing the Eurasian Economic Union was signed in Astana
on May 29, 2014. It consists of four chapters: Establishment of the Eurasian
Economic Union (I), Customs Union (II), Common Economic Space (III),
and Final and transitory provisions (IV).
36. Eurostat. 2014. “Intra-EU trade in goods—recent trends” (online). http://
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Intra-EU_trade_in
_goods_-_recent_trends
37. Belarus and Russia de facto reinstated customs control at their common
border. According to Belarusian President Lukashenko, Belarus lost nearly $
3 billion from economic turmoil in Russia associated with the Ukrainian
crisis, the annexation of Crimea, and Russian embargo on EU food imports
that also resulted in a ban on certain Belarusian exports. See “Belarus Lost $3
Billion in Russia-West Sanctions Battle—Lukashenko,” The Moscow Times,
July 2, 2015 (online), http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article
/belarus-lost-3-billion-in-russia-west-sanctions-battle---lukashenko
/522883.html and 2014 reporting on the scope and consequences of the
Russia-imposed embargo on food imports from the EU in Vadzim Smok,
“Belarus Smuggles EU Food to Russia Despite Sanctions.” Belarus Digest
(online), http://belarusdigest.com/story/belarus-smuggles-eu-food-russia
-despite-sanctions-19427
38. This brief trade war ended in December 2014 when Russia gradually recalled
its import ban.
39. Liberal theories of interdependence and early integration theory (Russett
1993; Bliss and Russett 1998; Haas and Schmitter 1964; among others)
point to stable and democratic domestic political order as a necessary con-
dition to successful regional integration.
40. See also Dragneva and Wolczuk (2015).
41. Vladimir Putin, Speech to the Plenary Meeting of the 70th Session of the
UN General Assembly, September 28, 2015 (transcript). http://en.kremlin
.ru/events/president/news/50385
42. See “Евразийский союз предлагает ЕС начать диалог о создании
общего экономического пространства” (“Eurasian Union proposes to
the EU to open a dialogue on the creation of a common economic space”),
ITAR-TASS, October 26, 2015. http://tass.ru/ekonomika/2380019
43. See Anton Barbashin, “Why the Eurasian Union keeps coming back,”
Intersection Project (online), http://intersectionproject.eu/article/russia-e
urope/why-eurasian-union-keeps-coming-back
44. See Sergey Karaganov, “Обещание Евразии” (“The Promise of Eurasia”).
Russian Journal. (Federal edition, Issue 241). October 26. 2015. http://rg.
ru/2015/10/26/karaganov.html
BIBLIOGRAPHY 151
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, Emanuel. 1998. Seeds of Peaceful Change: The OSCE’s Security
Community-Building Model. In Security Communities, ed. Emanuel Adler and
Michael Barnett, 119–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Adler, Emanuel, and Michel Barnett, eds. 1998. Security Communities. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, Jeffrey. 1999. Regional Integration and Democracy: Expanding on the
European Experience. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, Inc..
Averre, Derek. 2009. Competing Rationalities: Russia, the EU and the ‘Shared
Neighbourhood. Europe-Asia Studies 61 (10): 1689–1713.
Barbashin, Anton. 2015. The Eurasian Illusion: The Myth of Russia’s Economic
Union. Foreign Affairs, January.
Barry, Buzan, and Ole Waever. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of Inter-
national Society. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bergsten, Fred. 1997. Open Regionalism. Working Paper 97-3. Washington, DC:
Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Bliss, Harry, and Bruce Russett. 1998. Democratic Trading Partners: The Liberal
Connection, 1962–1989. Journal of Politics 60 (4): 1126–1147.
orzel, Tanja, and Thomas Risse, eds. 2016a. Handbook of Comparative Regional-
B€
ism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2016b. Introduction. In Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, ed. Tanja
B€orzel and Thomas Risse, 3–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buzan, Barry. 1991. People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security
Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/
Tokyo/Singapore: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
———. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the
Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of Inter-
national Society. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cadier, David. 2014. Eastern Partnership vs Eurasian Union? The EU-Russia Com-
petition in the Shared Neighbourhood and the Ukraine Crisis. Global Policy,
October 2014. http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/climate-change-
energy-and-sustainability/eastern-partnership-vs-eurasian-union-eu%E2%80%93
russia-co
Caporaso, James. 1996. The European Union and Forms of State: Westphalian,
Regulatory or Post-Modern? Journal of Common Market Studies 1 (34):
29–52.
Clément, Sophia. 1999. External Institutional Frameworks and Subregionalism in
South-Eastern Europe. In Building Security in Europe’s New Borderlands:
152 4 THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: COMPETING. . .
Subregional Cooperation in the Wider Europe, ed. Renata Dwan, 71–94. Armonk:
East West Institute; London: M. E. Sharpe.
Cohen, Saul. 2003. Geopolitics of the World System. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Cooper, Robert. 2000. The Post-modern State and World Order. London: Demos,
The Foreign Policy Centre.
Cottey, Andrew, ed. 1999. Subregional Cooperation in the New Europe: Building
Security, Prosperity and Solidarity from the Barents to the Black Sea. London:
Macmillan Press; New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Cowles, Maria Green, James Caporaso, and Thomas Risse, eds. 2001. Transforming
Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
De Lombaerde, Philippe, Fredrik S€ oderbaum, Luk Van Langenhove, and Francis
Baert. 2009. The Problem of Comparison in Comparative Regionalism. Jean
Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series (University of Miami) 9 (7).
DeBardeleben, Joan, ed. 2008. The Boundaries of EU Enlargement: Finding a Place
for Neighbours. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Delcour, Laure. 2010. The European Union, a Security Provider in the Eastern
Neighbourhood? European Security 4 (10): 535–549.
Deloy, Corinne, and Pascale Joannin. 2016. The Dutch Reject the Association
Treaty Between the EU and Ukraine. European Issues No. 388 (April
12, 2016). Paris: Fondation Robert Schuman.
Deutsch, Karl. 1964. Transaction Flows as Indicators of Political Cohesion. In The
Integration of Political Communities, ed. Philip Jacob and James Toscano,
75–97. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Dragneva, Rilka, and Kataryna Wolczuk. 2012. Russia, The Eurasian Customs
Union and the EU: Cooperation, Rivalry or Stagnation? Chatham House, REP
BP 2012/01 (August 2012). https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/cha
thamhouse/public/Research/Russia%20and%20Eurasia/0812bp_dragneva
wolczuk.pdf
———. 2015. EU Emulation in the Design of Eurasian Integration. In The Eur-
asian Project and Europe: Regional Discontinuities and Geopolitics, ed. David
Lane and Vsevolod Samokhvalov, 138–153. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Duncan, Peter. 2015. Ideology and Interests in Putin’s Construction of Eurasia. In
The Eurasian Project and Europe: Regional Discontinuities and Geopolitics,
ed. David Lane and Vsevolod Samokhvalov, 102–116. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Dutkiewicz, Piotr, and Richard Sakwa, eds. 2014. Eurasian Regionalism: The View
from Within. London: Routledge.
Dwan, Renata, ed. 1999. Building Security in Europe’s New Borderlands: Subre-
gional Cooperation in the Wider Europe. Armonk: East West Institute; London:
M. E. Sharpe.
Fawcett, Louise. 1995. Regionalism in a Historical Perspective. In Regionalism in
World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order, ed. Louise
Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell, 9–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 153
Furness, Mark, and Isabel Schäfer. 2015. The 2015 European Neighbourhood
Policy Review: More Realism, Less Ambition. The Current Column. http://
www.die-gdi.de/en/the-current-column/article/the-2015-european-neighbo
urhood-policy-review-more-realism-less-ambition/. Accessed 15 Feb 2016.
Galeotti, Mark, and Andrew Bowen. 2014. Putin’s Empire of the Mind. Foreign
Policy, 21 Apr 2014. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/21/putins-empire-of
-the-mind.
Galtung, Johan. 1973. The European Community: A Superpower in the Making.
Universiet for Laget
Gänzle, Stefan. 2002. The EU’s Presence and Actorness in the Baltic Sea Area:
Multilevel Governance Beyond Its External Borders. In EU Enlargement and
Beyond: The Baltic States and Russia, ed. H. Hubel, 73–103. Berlin: Spitz.
———. 2007. The EU’s Neighbourhood Policy: A Strategy for Security in Europe?
In The Changing Politics of European Security: Europe Alone? ed. S. Gänzle and
A. Sens, 110–134. London: Palgrave.
Grieco, Joseph. 1988. Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of
the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. International Organization 42 (3):
485–507.
Haas, Ernst, and Philippe Schmitter. 1964. Economics and Differential Patterns of
Political Integration: Projections About Unity in Latin America. International
Organization 18 (4): 705–737.
Hettne, Bj€orn. 2002. The Europeanization of Europe: Endogenous and Exogenous
Dimensions. Journal of European Integration 24 (4): 325–340.
———. 2005. Beyond the New Regionalism. New Political Economy 10 (4): 548.
Hettne, Bj€ orn, and Fredrik S€
oderbaum. 2000. Theorizing the Rise of Regionness.
New Political Economy 5 (3): 457–474.
High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and
European Commission. 2015. Joint Communication to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions, “Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy.”. Document JOIN
(2015) 50 Final (November 18, 2015). Brussels: High Representative of the
Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and European Commission.
Hopf, Ted, ed. 2008. Russia’s European Choice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
House of Lords, European Union Committee. 2015. The EU and Russia, Before
and Beyond the Crisis in Ukraine. Sixth Report 2014–2015. London: The
Stationary Office. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ld
select/ldeucom/115/115.pdf
Hyde-Price, Adrian. 1996. The International Politics of East Central Europe. Man-
chester: Manchester University Press.
Jacoby, Wade. 2006. The Enlargement of the European Union and NATO: Ordering
from the Menu in Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 155
Jarosiewicz, Aleksandra, and Ewa Fischer. 2015. The Eurasian Economic Union –
More Political, Less Economic. OSW Commentary. (January 20, 2015). http://
www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2015-01-20/eurasian-eco
nomic-union-more-political-less-economic.
Kannet, Roger, and Matthew Sussex, eds. 2015. Power, Politics and Confrontation
in Eurasia: Foreign Policy in a Contested Region. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Khasson, Viktoriya, Syuzanna Vasilyan, and Hendrik Vos. 2008. ‘Everybody Needs
Good Neighbours’: The EU and Its Neighbourhood. In Europe’s Global Role:
External Policies of the European Union, ed. Jan Orbie, 217–237. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Kiryukhin, Denys. 2016. Russia and Ukraine: The Clash of Conservative Projects.
European Politics and Society. Published online: 15 Mar 2016. doi:
10.1080/23745118.2016.1154130
Korosteleva, E. 2012. Eastern Partnership: A New Opportunity for the Neighbors?
Routledge: London.
Krasner, Stephen. 1983. International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Krastev, Ivan, and Mark Leonard. 2015. The New European Disorder. Essay. Brus-
sels: European Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/
ECFR117_TheNewEuropeanDisorder_ESSAY.pdf
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1986. Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry
into the Formation of the State System. World Politics 39: 27–52.
Lane, David. 2015. Eurasian Integration as a Response to Neoliberal Globalization.
In The Eurasian Project and Europe: Regional Discontinuities and Geopolitics,
ed. David Lane and Vsevolod Samokhvalov, 3–22. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Lane, David, and Vsevolod Samokhvalov, eds. 2015. The Eurasian Project and
Europe: Regional Discontinuities and Geopolitics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Laruelle, Marlène. 2008. Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of an Empire.
Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University
Press.
———. 2015. The ‘Russian World:’ Russia’s Soft Power and Geopolitical Imagina-
tion. Working paper. Washington, DC: Center on Global Interests.
Lavenex, Sandra. 2004. EU External Governance in ‘Wider Europe’. Journal of
European Public Policy 11 (4): 680–700.
Lavenex, Sandra, and Frank Schimmelfennig, eds. 2013. Democracy Promotion in
the EU’s Neighbourhood: From Leverage to Governance? London/New York:
Routledge.
Leonard, M., and N. Popescu. 2007. A Power Audit of EU-Russia Relations. Policy
Paper. London: European Council on Foreign Relations.
Makarychev, Andrey. 2012. Russia—EU: Competing Logics of Region Building.
DGAP Analyse 2012: 1.
156 4 THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: COMPETING. . .
Makarychev, Andrey, and Alexandra Yatsyk. 2014. The Four Pillars of Russia’s
Power Narrative. International Spectator 49 (4): 62–75.
Manners, Ian. 2002. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal
of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 253–274.
———. 2006. The Constitutive Nature of Values, Images and Principles in the
European Union. In Values and Principles in European Union Foreign policy,
ed. Sonia Lucarelli and Ian Manners, 19–41. London: Routledge.
———. 2010. As You Like It: EU Normative Power in the European
Neighbourhood Policy. In The European Neighbourhood Policy in Perspective:
Context, Implementation and Impact, ed. G. Whitman Richard and Stefan Wolff,
29–50. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mattli, Walter. 1999. The Logic of European Integration: Europe and Beyond. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Molchanov, Mikhail. 2016. Choosing Europe over Russia: What has Ukraine
Gained?. European Politics and Society. Published online: 15 Mar 2016. doi:
10.1080/23745118.2016.1154236
Movchan, Veronika, and Ricardo Giucci. 2011. Quantitative Assessment of
Ukraine’s Regional Integration Options: DCFTA with European Union
vs. Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Policy Paper Series
[PP/05/2011]. Berlin: German Advisory Council and Kiev: Institute for Eco-
nomic Research and Policy Consulting.
Nelsen, Brent, and Alexander Stubb, eds. 1998. The European Union: Readings on
the Theory and Practice of European Integration. Boulder: Lynne Reinner
Publishers.
Noutcheva, Gergana, Karolina Pomorska, and Giselle Bosse, eds. 2013. The EU and
Its Neighbors: Values Versus Security in European Foreign Policy.
Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.
Ohanyan, Anna. 2015. Networked Regionalism as Conflict Management. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Olsen, Johan. 2007. Europe in Search of Political Order: An Institutional Perspective
on Unity/Diversity, Citizens/Their Helpers, Democratic Design/Historical Drift
and the Co-existence of Orders. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Orbie, Jan. 2006. Civilian Power Europe: Review of the Original and Current
Debates. Cooperation and Conflict 41 (1): 123–128.
Popescu, Niku. 2006. Russia’s Soft Power Ambitions. CEPS Policy Brief 115/10.
Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
Popescu, Nico. 2014. Eurasian Union: The Real, the Imaginary and the Likely.
Chaillot Papers 132 (September 2014). Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.
Prozorov, Sergei. 2006. Understanding Conflict Between Russia and the EU: The
Limits of Integration. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 157
Richardson, Paul. 2015. Putin’s Eurasian Dialectic. In The Eurasian Project and
Europe: Regional Discontinuities and Geopolitics, ed. David Lane and Vsevolod
Samokhvalov, 89–101. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Risse, Thomas. 2016. The Diffusion of Regionalism. In Handbook of Comparative
Regionalism, ed. Tanja B€ orzel and Thomas Risse, 87–108. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ruggie, John. 1993. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in Inter-
national Relations. International Organization 47 (1): 139–174.
Russett, Bruce. 1975. International Regions and the International System. Westport:
Greenwood Press.
———. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sakwa, Richard. 2015. Challenges of Eurasian Integration. In Eurasian Integration –
The View from Within, ed. Piotr Dutkiewicz and Richard Sakwa, 12–30. Routledge.
———. 2016. How the Eurasian Elites Envisage the Role of the EEU in Global
Perspective. European Politics and Society. Published online: 15 April 2016. doi:
10.1080/23745118.2016.1171038
Schimmelfennig, Frank, and Ulrich Sedelmeier. 2005. The Europeanization of Cen-
tral and Eastern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Schimmelfennig, Frank, S. Stefan Engert, and Heiko Knobel. 2006. International
Socialization in Europe: European Organizations, Political Conditionality, and
Democratic Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmitter, Philippe C. 1996. Examining the Present Euro-Polity with the Help of
Past Theories. In Governance in the European Union, ed. Gary Marks, Fritz
W. Scharpf, Philippe Schmitter, and Wolfgang Streeck. London: SAGE.
Smith, Karen E. 2005. Beyond the Civilian Power Debate. Politique Européene
1 (17): 63–82.
Solingen, Etel. 2015. Comparative Regionalism: Economics and Security. London:
Routledge.
Stavridis, Stelios. 2001. Militarizing the EU: The Concept of Civilian Power Europe
Revisited. The International Spectator 36 (4): 43–50.
Stefanova, Boyka. 2009. OSCE and Balkan Security. Journal of Balkan and Near
Eastern Studies 11 (1): 43–60.
Stefanova, Boyka. 2011. The Europeanization of Conflict Resolution: Integration
and Conflicts in Europe from the 1950s to the 21st Century. Manchester: Man-
chester University Press.
Telò, Mario, ed. 2013. European Union and New Regionalism: Regional Actors and
Global Governance in a Post-Hegemonic Era. 3rd ed. Farnham: Ashgate.
Telò, Mario, Louise Fawcett, and Frederik Ponjaert, eds. 2016. Interregionalism
and the European Union: A Post-Revisionist Approach to Europe’s Place in a
Changing World, The Globalization, Europe and Multilateralism Series.
London: Routledge.
158 4 THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: COMPETING. . .
Trenin, Dmitry. 2009. Russia’s Spheres of Interest, Not Influence. The Washington
Quarterly 32 (4): 3–22.
———. 2015. From Greater Europe to Greater Asia? The Sino-Russian Entente.
Moscow: Carnegie Moscow Center.
van der Togt, Tony, Francesco Saverio Montesano, and Iaroslav Kozak. 2015.
From Competition to Compatibility: Striking a Eurasian Balance in EU-Russia
Relations. The Hague: Clingendael, Netherlands Institute of International
Relations.
Van Langenhove, Luk. 2012. Why We Need to ‘Unpack’ Regions to Compare
Them More Effectively. International Spectator 47 (1): 16–29.
Wæver, Ole. 1996. Europe’s Three Empires: A Watsonian Interpretation of the
Post-Wall European Security. In International Society After the Cold War: Anar-
chy and Order Reconsidered, ed. Rick Fawn and Jeremy Larkins, 220–260.
London: Macmillan Press.
———. 1997. Imperial Metaphors: Emerging European Analogies to Pre-Nation-
State Imperial Systems. In Geopolitics in Post-Wall Europe: Security, Territory and
Identity, ed. Ola Tunander, Pavel Baev, and Victoria Ingrid Einagel, 59–93.
London: Sage Publications.
Warleigh, Alex, and Luk Van Langenhove. 2010. Introduction. Rethinking EU
Studies: The Contribution of Comparative Regionalism. Journal of European
Integration 32 (6): 541–562.
Warleigh-Lack, Ales, Nick Robinson, and Ben Rosamond, eds. 2011. New Region-
alism and the European Union: Dialogues, Comparisons and New Research
Agendas. Abingdon: Routledge.
Wolczuk, Karen. 2009. Implementation Without Coordination: The Impact of EU
Conditionality on Ukraine Under the European Neighbourhood Policy. Europe-
Asia Studies 61 (2): 187–211.
Zielonka, Ian. 2006. Europe as Empire: The Nature of the Enlarged European Union.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CHAPTER 5
INTRODUCTION
Against global trends of rising protectionism and policy changes signaled by
the US’ withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, EU Trade Com-
missioner Cecilia Malmstr€ om stated that she hoped to use her government’s
trade relationship with China to contain the wave of protectionism in the
world trading system. How has the EU acted in order to curb protection-
ism? It actively pursued a policy of expanding free trade with Mexico,
negotiating a Bilateral Investment Agreement (BIA) with China, conclud-
ing a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with
Canada, and upgrading free-trade areas with countries outside its immedi-
ate proximity. However, in parallel with such exemplary overtures to
interregional and global interactions, ever since it completed its
East-European enlargement to include Croatia in 2013, the EU placed a
number of candidate countries in the waiting room and limited the oppor-
tunity of membership for other potential candidates through a network of
neighborhood agreements. Turkey, a candidate for joining the EU since
1987,1 has seen its relationship decline with no clear prospect for
a successful completion of its membership objective in the medium term.
The Western Balkans accession has stalled, with little interest on behalf of
key EU member states to maintain a positive outlook on the accession
INTRODUCTION 161
Internal Dynamics
International relations theory contends that the EU has altered nation-state
territoriality by establishing a post-territorial political order and a
multiperspectival polity (Ruggie 1993). Borders in the EU are in the
process of transition and diversification (Smith and Wistrich 2007) as inter-
nal borders disappear, external borders reorganize, and an increasing num-
ber of territories gravitate toward EU membership. The evolution of
sovereignty and territory takes place both in terms of delegation of compe-
tences to the supranational level in the process of pooling of sovereignty and
in the direction of devolution of tasks to the subnational and regional level
according to the principle of subsidiarity. A changed conception of territory
and sovereignty affects the principles of organization of the polity, as
individual groups cross functional and territorial lines and receive public
goods not directly supplied by the state (Tarrow 2004).
The mechanism of action of such shifting territorial frames, however, is
not unequivocally defined, nor is the outcome of the process. There is no
unidirectional movement toward strengthening a particular level of political
authority, the regional scale of jurisdiction, and the distribution of political
loyalties. How does the EU’s post-territorial order look like?
Several theoretical propositions explain the effects of regional integration
on the European nation-state system. Constructivism evokes the social
foundations of defining territorial spaces and identities. It argues that the
EU’s post-national order strengthens local and regional identities to the
detriment of national ones, altering the territorial boundaries of allegiances
and transcending the unifying nature of state sovereignty. The liberal
THE PUZZLE OF EUROPE’S OPEN REGIONALISM 165
the monopoly of the state over distributive policies. The process has a
transnational dimension (Hooghe 1995). Participation in European gover-
nance and the implementation of EU structural policies affects the relation-
ships between actors and institutions (Pasquier and Perron 2008). Such
relationships are the essence of regionalism: the process of changing func-
tionality of territorial institutions that promotes a given territory by granting
more control to the local government. Ansell (2004: 13) has argued that, as
a result of the interests and demands of social forces, territorial restructuring
takes place in the direction of a retreat of the state (Young 1997). New
layers of public claims over authority emerge. EU governance therefore
affects the constitutive (albeit not constitutional) features of the European
state system. Furthermore, the Euroregional context increases the perme-
ability of borders and regional openness. As a mechanism of regional policy,
CBC most directly challenges state centrism by altering the concept of
peripherality. The argument is that, through CBC, formerly peripheral
regions become a part of European regionalism. A process of rebundling
of territory is under way. Territoriality in the context of European region-
alism is modified, also because EU regionalism provides public goods, some
of which share the jurisdiction of the nation-state: regional policies, trade,
investment, welfare maximization.
Political opportunity structure approaches point to the multilevel and
cross-border functioning of networks of decisions-making, economic trans-
actions, and policy implementation resulting in shifting territorial scales of
political action (Laffan and Payne 2003). Following such premises, the
macropolitical view on territorial structuring in Europe regards European
integration as a consecutive stage of state building (Bartolini 2004, 2005).
As a result of processes of internationalization and regional integration
tasks, activities, expectations, and values become more diverse (Bartolini
2005: 40). Individuals, firms, and communities enter different jurisdictions,
as cross-border functional regimes develop and induce the territorial differ-
entiation of regulatory orders (Bartolini 2004: 23). Although not directly
imposing a constitutional requirement for devolution, regionalization and
the empowerment of the subnational level of governance associated with
the EU’s structural policies create incentives for regions to seek access to
resources, decision-making, and external representation (Bartolini 2004:
24). According to Bartolini, territorial spaces with higher institutional
autonomy and participation in administrative networks for the management
of functional areas, such as cross-border cooperation or EU functional
regimes, acquire diverse exit options transcending the national jurisdiction.
THE PUZZLE OF EUROPE’S OPEN REGIONALISM 167
The proposition that the EU adds a layer of territorial structures beyond the
nation-state suggests that political space is organized according to not only
historical, cultural, and ethnic identities but also according to institutional
choice and international negotiation. Furthermore, it reveals more directly
the comparative advantage of pursuing regionally clustered trade and
investment.
It follows that EU regionalism allows for the decoupling of territorial and
legal-constitutional frames. In the process of European integration and
policymaking, the territorial application of political action and governance
is shifting across local, national, and macroregional scales without a parallel
process of constitutional change, suggesting an unequivocally redefined or
weakened sovereignty (a condition that, if observed, would be coterminous
with the unidirectional empowerment of either the supranational or the
subnational level). The proposition that territorial dynamics may be auton-
omous from the evolution of nation-state sovereignty – while territory
remains a core attribute of sovereignty – is at the origin of the expanding
territorial frames of EU-centered regionalism beyond the institutions of
enlargement, proximity relations, and interregional cooperation.
been on the increase (from around 33% in 2004 to 37% in 2012), histori-
cally more than 60% of total inward FDI flows into European countries
represent intra-EU investments. The author further suggests that the
majority of regionally recorded FDI does not constitute genuinely new
investment from abroad, but rather a shift of capital between EU member
states. At the same time, both inward and outward FDI stocks (extra-EU)
grew in 2015 at a faster pace than in 2014. Between the end of 2014 and the
end of 2015, EU-28 outward stocks grew 14.9% and inward stocks grew
20.7%, compared with 10.0% and 15.2% between the end of 2013 and the
end of 2014.5 While Herrmann-Pillath (2006: 308) rightfully concludes
that regionalism is a natural feature of the global economy, it should be
acknowledged that regionalism is not necessarily a more effective strategy of
creating comparative advantage.
As both the long-term, regionalist thinking and short-term,
transactionalist approach are based on reciprocity and communication—
fundamental premises of multilateralism—regionalism no longer appears to
be an indispensable strategy to secure long-term comparative advantage.
New “regional” multilateralism, otherwise known to display certain auton-
omy due to the specifics of the region as an intermediate level of structures
and interactions, is nowadays often distorted by the organizing principles of
governance in the international system. Patterns of regional relations and
coalitions are shifted, modified, and reformulated. There is a certain defi-
ciency in the analytical capacity of regionalism to distinguish itself from
multilateralism as a principle of open cooperation, mutual advantage, and
diffuse reciprocity. It exists as a type of a nested game (Tsebelis 1990).
Regionalism therefore involves the interplay of group interests across the
domestic, regional, and global spheres of politics. As the sources of global
stability are weakened in the decline of hegemonic stability in the post-Cold
War era (Ohanyan 2015: 3), the regional level is confronted with resolving
issues associated with domestic power struggles and the increasing vulner-
ability of regions to the influence of neighboring and influential
outside powers. As a result, regions have become less cohesive and more
outward-looking. On the other hand, this trend is associated with a regional
“revival” (Ohanyan 2015: 3). As a form of economic, political, and social
integration, regionalism needs to resolve a large variety of tasks. In that
process, delegation of problem-solving skills and institutional forms takes
place both laterally and vertically.
The process of EU integration supports the claim that the relative
autonomy of multilateralism at the regional level is considerably modified
170 5 THE DETERRITORIALIZATION OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: GLOBAL. . .
of trade. The fact that there are no “natural regions” offers the opportunity
to open markets that have been either previously inaccessible or otherwise
constrained by traditional, territory-bound thinking. In the EU’s case, the
model of territorial expansion and proximity relations have followed the
foundational premises of its internal market and customs union.
In theory, open regionalism allows the EU and interested parties to
develop flexible forms of interaction based on a new type of comparative
advantage associated with minimal bureaucracy (thus offsetting the rising
costs of deep integration). The globalization of the incentive structure of
regionalism is at the origin of its transformation from a territorially clustered
project into a system of flexible cross-regional arrangements. This process
may be conceptualized as the deterritorialization of regionalism.
80 74.9
70.0 70.0
70
61.7 59.4 60.0
60
50.2
50 43.6
40 34.1 34.6
29.8 29.0
30 27.1 25.3
20
10
0
World GDP World Exports World Imports World FDI World FDI World M&A World M&A
Inward Stock Outward Stock Sales Purchases
2008 2016
Fig. 5.1 The growth of the Transatlantic economy (2010–2016) (Data source:
Hamilton and Quinlan (2010: 20, 2016: 14))
Reterritorialization
This aspect of the evolution of regionalism constitutes a process of recrea-
tion of spaces of interaction and contiguity beyond conventional regionalist
premises. Similarly to new regionalism, reterritorialization is the result of the
political choices and strategies of states and nonstate actors. It is reflected in
new configurations of regions built through connectivity, regulatory sys-
tems, and economic transactions. Reterritorialization is associated with the
deterritorialization of long-standing regional integration projects. The EU
is an example of such evolving trends, at odds with the premises of region-
alist theorizing due to the evolving referents for defining regions and
regional integration. At the same time, processes of growing interconnec-
tedness and concentration of investment and trade, mimicking the features
of regionalism, have nontrivial implications for the institutional and political
preferences of states and the configuration of regions. The EU’s extended
neighborhood and interregional relations are part of a novel process of
region building replacing existing patterns of interdependence with signif-
icant implications for the EU’s geopolitical position.
Since its original formulation in 2013, China’s OBOR initiative repre-
sents an example of such developments. OBOR, also known as “The New
Silk Road,” blends together infrastructural, developmental, transactional,
and geoeconomic projects. Its focus is on building much-needed infrastruc-
ture across Eurasia by linking China’s western regions to Europe. Improv-
ing connectivity by providing development opportunities is expected to
boost economic growth especially in Central Asia, Pakistan, the Middle
East, the EU, and Russia. OBOR consists of two components, a land-
based Silk Road and maritime belt connecting ports from South Asia
through the Middle East to the Mediterranean.22
THE CONTINUED DETERRITORIALIZATION OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM 187
NOTES
1. Turkey negotiated a customs union in 1995 and entered into accession
negotiations with the EU in 2005.
2. Reference is made in particular to the Investor-State Dispute Settlement
mechanism of TTIP, discussed later in this chapter. See Sect. “A
Deterritorialized Perspective on Open Regionalism.”
3. The NUTS system.
4. Herrmann-Pillath (2006: 298) regards liberalization, both unilateral and
multilateral, as an institution.
5. See Eurostat, Foreign direct investment statistics, Data from April 2017.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Foreign_
direct_investment_statistics (accessed May 3, 2017). FDI flows record the
value of cross-border transactions related to direct investment during a given
period of time. Financial flows consist of equity transactions, reinvestment of
earnings, and intercompany debt transactions. FDI stocks measure total
direct investment at a given point in time. The outward FDI stock is the
value of the resident investors’ equity in and net loans to enterprises in
foreign economies. The inward FDI stock is the value of foreign investors’
equity in and net loans to enterprises resident in the reporting economy
(Eurostat).
6. On the strategy of generating compliance in deep integration, see Chap. 2,
theories of regionalism. See also Moravcsik (1998).
7. Reference is made to De Gaulle’ concept of European security “of all nations
between the Atlantic and the Urals.” The quote is from De Gaulle, “A
Concert of European Nations,” reprinted from “Europe,” Memoirs of
Hope: Renewal and Endeavor (Simon and Schuster, 1971) in Nelsen and
Stubb (1998).
8. The UK membership referendum was announced by Prime Minster Harold
Wilson on January 23, 1975. The referendum took place on June 6, 1975.
9. Voter turnout rate was 71.8%. There were wide disparities in the regional
vote. England and Wales voted for Brexit, 53.4% to 46.6% and 52.5% to
47.5%, respectively. Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain in the
EU. The “Remain” vote won 62% to 38% in Scotland and 55.8% to 44.2% in
Northern Ireland. See BBC, “EU Referendum Results,” http://www.bbc.
com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results (accessed May 2, 2017).
10. See “The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the
European Union White Paper,” Policy paper of the UK Government,
Department for Exiting the European union (originally published on
NOTES 193
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acharya, Amitav. 2016. Regionalism Beyond EU-Centrism. In The Oxford Hand-
book of Comparative Regionalism, ed. Tanja B€
orzel and Thomas Risse, 109–130.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adler, Emanuel. 1998. Seeds of Peaceful Change: The OSCE’s Security Commu-
nity-Building Model. In Security Communities, ed. Emanuel Adler and Michael
Barnett, 119–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, David. 2005. Cohesion and Structural Funds. In Policy Making in the
European Union, ed. Helen Wallace, William Wallace, and Mark Pollack,
213–241. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, John. 1997. The International Politics of Central Asia.
Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.
Anderson, James, Liam O’Dowd, and Thomas Wilson. 2002. Why Study Borders
Now? Regional and Federal Studies 12: 1–12.
Ansell, Christopher. 2004. Restructuring Authority and Territoriality. In
Restructuring Territoriality: Europe and the United States Compared,
ed. Christopher Ansell and Giuseppe Di Palma, 3–18. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bache, Ian. 2008. Europeanization and Multilevel Governance: Cohesion Policy in the
European Union and Britain. Boulder/New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Badinger, Harald, and Volker Nitsch, eds. 2016. Routledge Handbook of the Eco-
nomics of European Integration. London/New York: Routledge.
Balme, Richard. 2008. A European Strategy Towards China? The Limits of Inte-
gration in Foreign Policy Making. In Europe-Asia Relations: Building Multilat-
eralism, ed. Richard Balme and Brian Bridges, 125–144. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 195
Balme, Richard, and Brian Bridges. 2008. Introducing Asia, Europe and the Chal-
lenges of Globalization. In Europe-Asia Relations: Building Multilateralism,
ed. Richard Balme and Brian Bridges, 1–23. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bartolini, Stefano. 2004. Old and New Peripheries in the Processes of European
Territorial Integration. In Restructuring Territoriality: Europe and the United
States Compared, ed. Christopher Ansell and Giuseppe Di Palma, 19–44. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bartolini, Stefano. 2005. Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building,
and Political Restructuring Between the Nation-State and the European Union.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Belanger, Marie-Eve. 2015. Deterritorialization and Europeanization: A Deleuzian
Reading of EU’s Enlargement. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual ICPP Con-
ference, Milan, July 3. http://www.icpublicpolicy.org/conference/file/reponse
/1433846235.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2017.
Benz, Arthur, and Burkhard Eberlein. 1999. The Europeanization of Regional
Policies: Patterns of Multi-level Governance. Journal of European Public Policy
6 (2): 329–348.
Bergsten, Fred. 1997. Open Regionalism. In Working Paper 97–3. Washington,
DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Best, Lurich. 2007. Transgression as a Rule: German-Polish Cross-border Coopera-
tion, Border Discourse and EU-Enlargement. Münster: LIT Verlag.
Bindi, Federiga, and Irina Angelescu. 2011. The Frontiers of Europe: A Transatlantic
Problem? Rome; Washington, DC: Scuola Superiore della Pubblica
Amministrazione (SSPA); Brookings Institution Press.
Bort, Eberhard. 2005. European Borders in Transition: The Internal and External
Frontiers of the European Union. In Holding the Line: Borders in a Global World,
ed. H. Nicol and I. Townsend-Gauly, 63–89. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press.
B€
orzel, Tanja. 2010. European Governance: Negotiation and Competition in the
Shadow of Hierarchy. Journal of Common Market Studies 48 (2): 191–219.
orzel, Tanja, and Thomas Risse, eds. 2016a. Handbook of Comparative Regional-
B€
ism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2016b. Introduction. In Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, ed. Tanja
B€orzel and Thomas Risse, 3–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of Inter-
national Society. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Castro, Renato Cruz De. 2006. Exploring the Prospect of China’s Peaceful Emer-
gence in East Asia. Asian Affairs: An American Review 33 (2): 85–102.
Caporaso, James A. 1996. The European Union and Forms of State: Westphalian,
Regulatory or Post-Modern? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 34 (1):
29–52.
196 5 THE DETERRITORIALIZATION OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: GLOBAL. . .
Geddes, Andrew. 2013. Britain and the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Giddens, Andrew. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Polity
Press.
Godement, François. 2008. Europe-Asia: The Historical Limits of a ‘Soft’ Relation-
ship. In Europe-Asia Relations: Building Multilateralism, ed. Richard Balme and
Brian Bridges, 27–46. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haas, Ernst. 1958 [1968]. The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic
Forces, 1950–1957. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hanemann, Thilo, and Mikko Huotari. 2016. A New Record Year for Chinese
Outbound Investment in Europe. In Report (February 2016). Berlin: Mercator
Institute for China Studies.
Hamilton, Daniel, and Joseph Quinlan. 2010. The Transatlantic Economy 2010:
Annual Survey of Jobs, Trade, and Investment Between the United States and
Europe. Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations SAIS.
———. 2016. The Transatlantic Economy 2016: Annual Survey of Jobs, Trade, and
Investment Between the United States and Europe. Washington, DC: Center for
Transatlantic Relations SAIS.
Hettne, Bjorn. 1997. The Double Movement: Global Market Versus Regionalism.
In The New Realism: Perspectives on Multilateralism and World Order,
ed. Robert Cox, 223–242. Tokyo/New York/Paris: United Nations University
Press.
Hettne, Bj€orn. 2002. The Europeanisation of Europe: Endogenous and Exogenous
Dimensions. Journal of European Integration 24 (4): 325–340.
Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten. 2006. The True Story of Wine and Cloth, or: Building
Blocks of an Evolutionary Political Economy of International Trade. Journal of
Evolutionary Economics 16 (4): 383–417.
HM Government (UK). 2017. The United Kingdom’s Exit from and New Partner-
ship with the European Union. Document Cm 9417. https://www.gov.uk/govern
ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589191/The_United_
Kingdoms_exit_from_and_partnership_with_the_EU_Web.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb
2017.
Hooghe, Liesbet. 1995. Subnational Mobilisation in the European Union. West
European Politics 18 (3): 175–198.
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2009. A Postfunctionalist Theory of European
Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Jour-
nal of Political Science 39 (01): 1.
Katzenstein, Peter J. 2005. A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American
Imperium. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Keating, Michael. 1993. The Politics of Modern Europe: The State and Political
Authority in the Major Democracies. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
———. 1998. The New Regionalism in Western Europe: Territorial Restructuring
and Political Change. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
198 5 THE DETERRITORIALIZATION OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: GLOBAL. . .
Laffan, B., and D. Payne. 2003. INTERREG III and Cross-Border Cooperation
in the Island of Ireland. Perspectives on European Politics and Societies 4 (3):
447–473.
Laursen, Finn, ed. 2013. EU Enlargement: Current Challenges and Strategic
Choices. Brussels: P.I.E. Lang.
Loughlin, John. 2007. The Welsh Case: Cultural Diversity of a Nation with Devel-
oped Powers in a Unitary State. In Regional Identity and Diversity in Europe:
Experience in Wales, Silesia and Flanders, ed. David Smith and Enid Wistrich,
34–63. London: The Federal Trust.
Malfliet, Katlijn, Lien Verpoest, and Evgeny Vinokurov, eds. 2007. The CIS, the EU
and Russia: The Challenges of Integration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marcou, Gerard. 2002. Regionalization for Development and Accession to the
European Union: A Comparative Perspective. Budapest: Open Society Institute.
Marks, Gary, Liesbet Hooghe, and Kermit Blank. 1996. European Integration from
the 1980s: State-Centric v. Multi-level Governance. JCMS: Journal of Common
Market Studies 34 (3): 341–378.
Marks, Gary. 2004. Conclusion: European Integration and Political Conflict. In
European Integration and Political Conflict, ed. Gary Marks and Marco
Steenbergen, 235–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mattli, Walter. 1999. The Logic of European Integration: Europe and Beyond. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGarry, John, and Michael Keating, eds. 2006. European Integration and the
Nationalities Question. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Milward, Alan. 1992. The European Rescue of the Nation State. Berkeley/Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Mitrany, David. 1975. The Functional Theory of Politics. London: Martin Robinson.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power
from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Murray, Philomena. 2008. Europe and Asia: Regions in Flux. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Nelsen, Brent, and Alexander Stubb, eds. 1998. The European Union: Readings on
the Theory and Practice of European Integration. Boulder: Lynne Rienner
Publishers.
Nikolova, Pavlina. 2008. Régionalisation et Politique Régionale en Bulgarie. Revue
d’ Etudes Comparatives Est-Ouest 39 (3): 85–111.
Norris, Benjamin. 2016. Chinese Economic Statecraft: Commercial Actors, Grand
Strategy, and State Control. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.
Nye, Joseph. 1971. Peace in Parts: Integration and Conflict in Regional Organiza-
tion. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Ohanyan, Anna. 2015. Networked Regionalism as Conflict Management. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 199
Paasi, Anssi. 2009. The Resurgence of the ‘Region’ and ‘Regional Identity’:
Theoreitcal Perspectives and Empirical Observations on Regional Dynamics in
Europe. In Globalizing the Regional: Regionalizing the Global, ed. Rick Fawn,
121–146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pasquier, Roman, and Catherine Perron. 2008. Régionalisation et Régionalismes
dans l’Europe Elargie : Les Enjeux d’Une Comparaison Est-Ouest. Revue
d’Etudes Comparatives Est-Ouest 39 (3): 5–18.
Paunksnis, Sarunas, ed. 2015. Dislocating Globality: Deterritorialization, Difference
and Resistance. Leiden: Brill.
Pedersen, Thomas. 2002. Cooperative Hegemony: Power, Ideas and Institutions in
Regional Integration. Review of International Studies 28 (4): 677–696.
Risse, Thomas. 2016. The Diffusion of Regionalism. In Handbook of Comparative
Regionalism, ed. Tanja B€ orzel and Thomas Risse, 87–108. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rosamond, Ben. 2000. Theories of European Integration. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Rosenau, James. 1997. The Person, the Household, the Community, and the
Globe: Notes for a Theory of Multilateralism in a Turbulent World. In The
New Realism: Perspectives on Multilateralism and World Order, ed. Robert
Cox, 57–80. Tokyo/New York/Paris: United Nations University Press.
Ruggie, John G. 1982. International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embed-
ded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order. International Organization
36 (2): 379–415.
———. 1993. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in Interna-
tional Relations. International Organization 47 (1): 139–174.
Sandholtz, Wayne. 1999. Globalization and the Evolution of Rules. In Globalization
and Governance, ed. Aseem Prakash and Jeffrey Hart, 77–102. London:
Routledge.
Sandholtz, Wayne, and Alec Stone Sweet, eds. 1998. European Integration and
Supranational Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schiff, Maurice. 2002. Regional Integration and Development in Small States. Policy
Research Working Paper. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2797
Schimmelfennig, Frank, S. Stefan Engert, and Heiko Knobel. 2006. International
Socialization in Europe: European Organizations, Political Conditionality, and
Democratic Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmidt, Vivien. 2008. The EU as a Supranational Regional State: Rethinking What
the EU Is and Where It Is Going. In A Recast Relationship? Institutional
Dimensions of Transatlantic Relations, ed. Simon Serfaty, 77–94. Washington,
DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Scott, James. 2005. Transnational Regionalism, Strategic Geopolitics, and European
Integration: The Case of the Baltic Sea Region. In Holding the Line: Borders in a
Global World, ed. H. Nicol and I. Townsend-Gauly, 90–116. Vancouver/
Toronto: UBC Press.
200 5 THE DETERRITORIALIZATION OF EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: GLOBAL. . .
create cooperative frameworks. The final section outlines avenues for future
research, placing particular emphasis on the need to better integrate insights
from political economy and international security in the study of
regionalism.
INTRODUCTION
This book proceeded from the assumption that the EU is a shorthand and
principal unit of analysis for European regionalism. The research objective
has been to shed new light on the diverse and often adverse trends in the
EU’s contemporary evolution. Most of these trends have replaced the
euphoria around the unification of Europe in the context of the
East-European accession of the 1990s. On the one hand, the unprece-
dented complexity of the EU enlargement, uncertain geopolitical evolution
of the EU’s neighborhood policy, and varying intensity of the pursuit of
mega-regional trading arrangements have emerged as highly contested
arenas and a threat to the sustainability of the long-standing model of
progressive expansion of European regionalism. On the other hand, shifting
trends of global competition, demands for global regulation, and opportu-
nities for trade creation beyond the classical model of territorially clustered
cross-border free trade have established themselves as policy priorities for a
growing number of influential political and social actors across the EU.
The complexity of European regionalism is due to its dual nature. It
combines structural features, reflected in propositions of interdependence
and geographic proximity, with political values and preferences, motiva-
tions, strategies, and contradictions. While the theme of enlargement as a
process of institutional growth and territorial expansion has been extensively
studied as one of the positive systemic outcomes of European integration,
the reemergence of borders and differences in values and preferences in the
context of the EU’s neighborhood policies, cross-regional partnerships, and
mega-regional agreements challenges established understandings of the
classic model of EU regionalism as an open ever-growing regional system.
Still, these issues have not been systematically examined through a common
analytical lens and with regard to the impact they have on the modus
operandi of European integration, regional cooperation, and global
governance.
The first question that such contradictory developments pose refers to
the progressive territorial expansion of EU-centered regionalism that since
INTRODUCTION 205
not fully comprehensive and have moved away from the tenets of trade
theory—a premise of European regionalism since its inception as a project of
regional reconciliation in Western Europe. The lack of congruence between
the definition of domains of policymaking along territorial and functional
lines, for example between immigration policy and movement of produc-
tion factors, has undermined the EU’s credibility as an institution and a
project of deep integration. The book thus problematizes institutionalism as
an analytical lens in the study of European regionalism.
THE ISSUES
In contrast to theoretical insight from comparative and evolutionary per-
spectives that points to “global scripts” for the workings of contemporary
regionalism (Katzenstein 2005; B€ orzel and Risse 2016b), European region-
alism has long been considered a model regional system whose genesis is
embedded in the unique circumstances of post-WWII Western Europe.
Despite its sui generis nature, the EU’s global relevance has been measured
in terms of its own imprint on the theory and practice of regionalism.
European regionalism represents a template of political principles for trade
creation and region building and an exemplar projected through the EU’s
normative global posture (B€ orzel and Risse 2016a; Warleigh-Lack et al.
2011). The comparative regionalism perspective has “mainstreamed”
European regionalism as a case explored relative to others in terms of
drivers, institutional evolution, and outcomes (B€ orzel et al. 2012), thus
removing some of the complexity of its contemporary dimensions. The
dynamics of EU-centered regionalism since the 1990s have moved away
from the model of a political system in the making (Hix 1998) and a driver
of interregionalism (De Lombaerde 2006; Doidge 2011). While internally,
the indispensable nature of intergovernmental frameworks within the EU
sustain its features as an international institution and an arena in interna-
tional negotiation, externally, global developments have modified the
established channels of the EU’s relationships with other regions and influ-
ential players conventionally subsumed under the tenets of interregionalism.
Without claims to interdisciplinarity, regionalism lends itself to a more
complex investigation, one based on explicitly mobilized insights and
methods from political inquiry, social theory, political economy, institution-
alist economics, and economic theory. While prioritizing political analysis
through concepts of power, capabilities, institutions, and governance, the
region as a unit of analysis needs to remain open to insight from history, law,
THE ISSUES 209
China’s grand strategy. In the case of Central Asia, a periphery for the
application of the EU-centered regionalist model, increasingly dense eco-
nomic interactions with China create incentives that allow the regional
states to associate their own economic success to China’s economic growth
(Norris 2016: 20). The system of economic growth thus creates regionally
clustered dependencies without a parallel institutional creation. It may be
argued that state control over the external economic activities of Chinese
SOEs through the structure of incentives (Norris 2016: 21) is the essence of
the regionalist perspective on state capitalism. It results in an economic
system of newly defined regional interdependencies, the core tenet of
regionalism. Similarly, Dobson (2012: 272) has argued that China’s
WTO membership marked the culmination of its commitment to the global
trade agenda. Having adapted to the requirements of WTO membership,
China moved on to create trade-friendly initiatives, such as the One Belt,
One Road (OBOR) project with subsets of actors. China’s model of PTA
building has few participatory features and direct region-building impact.
This model of fragmented regionalism, however, has emerged as yet
another alternative model of regionalism, in contrast to the normative,
open, and deeply institutionalized model of regionalism embedded in
the EU.
The cases of EU enlargement, the EU’s neighborhood policies, and
global interactions discussed in the book collectively demonstrate such
dynamics. It may be inferred that with the shifting sources of global growth
and competitiveness and new approaches to managing regionalism in a way
opposite to the deep institutionalization dynamics typical of European
integration, the capacity of the EU-centered model of neoliberal regional-
ism to serve as a model system has declined. Such developments raise a
different question: How does the EU’s template of regionalism relate to its
environment if it may no longer be considered as a script to follow?
From a combined comparative/global perspective, conventional region-
alist theorizing has no analytical framework outside the concept of open
regionalism to examine new and evolving cross-regional relationships of
competition, contestation, and rivalry. As Chap. 5 has demonstrated, the
political approach to the study of EU-centered regionalism is not directly
compatible with the analytical apparatus of multilateralism and regionaliza-
tion associated with the world trading system. The book has addressed such
limitations by upgrading a static comparative framework through the prop-
osition of interrelated and contested regional and global arenas.
THE APPROACH 211
THE APPROACH
The book’s focus was on providing a novel perspective on key questions that
the literature on European regionalism has been deeply engaged in studying
but has yet to develop into an integrated perspective, especially with regard
to understanding regionalism as an arena of contestation and competition.
This analysis builds on the proposition that the EU’s enlargement and
neighborhood policies, coterminous with new directions of participation
in the global economy, alter the EU’s external positioning and redefine the
meaning of European regionalism. On the one hand, they represent gover-
nance mechanisms with significant impact on the system itself. On the other
hand, they affect the EU’s position in the broader regional system and in
global governance. Viewed through the lens of multidimensionality, terri-
torial expansion, proximity relations, and global interactions constitute
interconnected policy arenas that reflect shifts in global competitiveness
and structural interdependence. Following such premises, the main research
task has been to explore the patterns of regionalism not as an integral system
but as a diverse multilayered and multidimensional process with varying
density and impact.
The book uncovers new dimensions of EU-centered European region-
alism by tracing change at several levels: a deconstructed enlargement policy
at the level of institutions, public feedback, and economic growth; geopo-
litical shifts associated with the EU’s neighborhood policy; and the push–
pull dynamics resulting from the diverse interests of EU member states and
influential global actors.
This research is conducive to generalizable findings as it is well positioned
within broader perspectives of international relations theory that tend to
“mainstream” regionalism as a category of analysis. The international rela-
tions theory of regionalism is a meeting place of institutionalist, liberal, and
neorealist perspectives. The dynamic analysis of regional integration and
regionalism more broadly is amenable to such a treatment. General theories
tend to be better positioned to provide the parsimony needed to explain the
case, as they apply basic principles, common concepts, and causal mecha-
nisms that transcend the Eurocentric analysis of European regionalism and
make it more directly comparable and relevant to other cases of regional
cooperation and global governance.
The research design of this analysis was implemented by means of meth-
odological tools beyond a “variable-oriented” approach (Ragin 1987). The
latter explains outcomes by the additive and/or interactive effects of
212 6 NO CHEERS FOR EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: EU-CENTERED REGIONALISM. . .
FINDINGS
The principal benefits from this approach may be linked to the innovative
treatment of regionalism beyond the dominant analytical framework of
comparative regionalism (Breslin et al. 2002; Van Langenhove 2011,
2012). It examines the EU’s evolution as a regionalist project through the
lens of new developments in contemporary global politics: the return to
geopolitics in the post-Cold War era, the changing role of institutions for
maintaining order and solving collective action problems, and the unsettled
relationship between multilateralism and regionalism in global trade gover-
nance. Its second major contribution is that it does so by transcending the
analytical limitations of conventional frameworks that separate the internal
dynamics of regional integration from its external impact through diffusion,
emulation, and geopolitical competition. The book covers all of these areas
by positing institutional depth and expansion, geopolitical reordering, and
cross-regional interaction as interdependent, coevolving arenas of global
competition. Interaction represents the core of the dynamic approach to the
study of EU regionalism. By focusing on impact and change, this approach
presents an alternative to conventional frameworks centered on the concept
of open regionalism. It uncovers new relationships between multilateralism,
embedded in the global trade regime, and regional trading schemes.
The relationship between globalization and the nation-state is not uni-
directional. The model of open regionalism was established in the context of
increasingly globalizing dynamics and the more or less unconditional
adjustment of the nation-state. Open regionalism has come to represent
not only the building block of globalization and protective layer of gover-
nance designed to internalize the externalities related to globalization—a
renewed version of the “rescue of the nation state” of the original European
integration project (Milward 1992). This book has argued that the propo-
sition of a regional filter and protective layer is not unproblematic.
According to King (2017), the potential trade-off between the global and
the local involves a complex relationship between conflict, coercion, and
cooperation. Regionalism therefore is an arena of competition and contes-
tation besides being an agent of and a filter for globalization. Analysis
suggests that changes in the model of regionalism are likely to affect its
multidimensional function as a bridge between globalization and the
nation-state.
The institutionalization of regional blocs another major constitutes
another major area of exploration in the book. This analysis is based on
FINDINGS 215
criteria, the chapter finds that the EU’s enlargement policy is inadequate to
the objectives for which it has been designed and is at risk of reversal.
Although enlargement has produced some institutional innovation and
early positive feedback effects, it has failed to replace the model of compen-
sation that rewards particularistic interests within the old EU member states
to the detriment of achieving a combination of institutional transformation.
The chapter concludes that the slowing down of territorial expansion has
been coterminous with the EU’s positioning within the wider-Europe
region as the meeting place between EU-centered regionalism and Eurasian
geopolitics.
Chapter 4, devoted to the EU’s neighborhood relations, demonstrates
that it is analytically appropriate and empirically useful to examine the
external dimension of EU-centered regionalism through a geopolitical
lens. The chapter integrates insights from international relations theory
and foreign policy analysis in order to explore the interaction between the
EU and its neighbors to the east with a special focus on Russia’s competing
model of Eurasian regionalism, embedded in the EEU. A geopolitical
approach situates the comparison of European and Eurasian regionalism
with regard to their relative positioning and external impact. The chapter
explores the differences in values and interests that underlie Russia’s and the
EU’s relationships with their overlapping common neighborhoods and
concludes that such developments have reoriented the EU-centered con-
ceptualization of European regionalism away from a hierarchically ordered
and expanding regional system into a form of retrenched regionalism.
Chapter 5 has revisited the proposition of shifting territorial dynamics in
the post-enlargement stage of European regionalism. The chapter shows
that in the wake of the East-European enlargement, the EU increasingly
adopted a model of open regionalism focused on expanding its cross-
regional and global interactions. It conceptualizes such processes as the
relative deterritorialization of European regionalism reflected in the push–
pull dynamics of shifting the territorial scales of central EU tenets: the Single
European market, freedom of movement, enlargement, and interregional
relations. Based on the concept of deterritorialization, the chapter presents
an argument that the territorial, regulatory, and political boundaries of
EU-centered regionalism no longer coincide. The EU increasingly partici-
pates in trans-regional and global regulation, interacts with regional insti-
tutions and influential actors beyond the tenets of interregionalism, alters its
territorial cohesiveness, and is subject to competitive and geopolitical
pressures.
FINDINGS 217
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Averre, Derek. 2009. Competing Rationalities: Russia, the EU and the ‘Shared
Neighbourhood’. Europe-Asia Studies 61 (10): 1689–1713.
orzel, Tanja, and Thomas Risse, eds. 2016a. Handbook of Comparative Regional-
B€
ism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2016b. Introduction. In Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, ed. Tanja
B€orzel and Thomas Risse, 3–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2016c. Three Cheers for Comparative Regionalism. In The Oxford Hand-
book of Comparative Regionalism, ed. Tanja B€orzel and Thomas Risse, 621–648.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
B€
orzel, Tanija A., Lukas Goltermann, Mathis Lohaus, and Kai Striebinger, eds. 2012.
Roads to Regionalism: Genesis, Design, and Effects of Regional Organizations.
Burlington: Ashgate.
Breslin, Shaun, Richard Higgott, and Ben Rosamond. 2002. Regions in Compara-
tive Perspective. In New Regionalisms in the Global Political Economy: Theories
and Cases, ed. Shaun Breslin, Christopher W. Hughes, Nicola Phillips, and Ben
Rosamond. London: Routledge.
Caporaso, James. 1996. The European Union and Forms of State: Westphalian,
Regulatory or Post-modern? Journal of Common Market Studies 34 (1): 29–52.
Closa, Carlos. 2015. Mainstreaming Regionalism. In EUI Working Paper RSCAS
2015/12. San Domenico di Fiesole: European University Institute.
De Lombaerde, Philippe, ed. 2006. Multilateralism, Regionalism and Bilateralism
in Trade and Investment, 2006 World Report on Regional Integration. Dordrecht:
Springer.
De Lombaerde, Philippe, Fredrik S€ oderbaum, Luk Van Langenhove, and Francis
Baert. 2010. The Problem of Comparison in Comparative Regionalism. Review
of International Studies 36 (3): 731–753.
Deutsch, Karl, et al. 1957. Political Community and the North Atlantic Area:
International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Dinan, Desmond. 2010. Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration.
4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dobson, Wendy. 2012. History Matters: China and Global Governance. In China’s
New Role in the World Economy, ed. Yiping Huang and M. Yu. London:
Routledge.
Doidge, Matthew. 2011. The European Union and Interregionalism: Patterns of
Engagement. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.
Fawcett, Louise, and Mónica Serrano. 2005. Introduction. In Regionalism and
Governance in the Americas: Continental Drift, ed. Louise Fawcett and Mónica
Serrano, xxii–xxvii. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 219
George, Alexander, and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Develop-
ment in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Hettne, Bj€orn. 2003. The New Regionalism Revisited. In Theories of New Region-
alism: A Palgrave Reader, ed. Frederik S€ oderbaum and Timothy Shaw, 22–43.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Hettne, Bj€orn, and Frederik S€ oderbaum. 2000. Theorising the Rise of Regionness.
New Political Economy 5 (3): 457–473.
Hettne, Bj€ orn, and Fredrik S€ oderbaum. 2012. The Future of Regionalism: Old
Divides, New Frontiers. In Regionalisation and Global Governance: The Taming
of Globalisation? ed. Andrew F. Cooper, Christopher W. Hughes, and Philippe
De Lombaerde, 61–79. London: Routledge.
Hix, Simom. 1998. The Study of the European Union II: the ‘New Governance’
Agenda and Its Rival. Journal of European Public Policy 5 (1): 38–65.
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2009. A Post-functionalist Theory of Integration:
From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Journal of Political
Science 39 (3): 1–23.
Jupille, Joseph, James Caporaso, and Jeffrey Checkel. 2003. Integrating Institu-
tions: Rationalism, Constructivism, and the Study of the European Union.
Comparative Political Studies 36 (1/2): 7–41.
Katzenstein, Peter J. 2005. A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American
Imperium. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Kay, Adrian. 2006. The Dynamics of Public Policy: Theory and Evidence. London:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
King, Stephen. 2017. The Pendulum Swings between Globalisation and Nation
State: This Time It Is the Richest Countries that Are Seeking the Safety of Their
Borders. Financial Times (online, April 19, 2017). https://www.ft.com/content/
c497caf2-205a-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c. Accessed 2 May 2017.
Milward, Alan. 1992. The European Rescue of the Nation State. London: Routledge.
Norris, William. 2016. Chinese Economic Statecraft: Commercial Actors, Grand
Strategy, and State Control. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Nugent, Neill. 2006. The Government and Politics of the European Union.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Orbie, Jan. 2008. The European Union’s Role in the World Trade: Harnessing
Globalization? In Europe’s Global Role: External Policies of the European Union,
ed. Jan Orbie, 36–66. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Preston, Christopher. 1997. Enlargement and Integration in the European Union.
London: Routledge.
Ragin, Charles. 1987. The Comparative Method. Moving Beyond Qualitative and
Quantitative Strategies. Berkley: University of California Press.
Sandler, Todd, and Keith Hartley. 1999. Economics of Alliances: The Lessons for
Collective Action. Journal of Economic Literature 39 (3): 237–246.
220 6 NO CHEERS FOR EUROPEAN REGIONALISM: EU-CENTERED REGIONALISM. . .
Strange, Gerard (Gerry). 2011. “The Euro, EU Social Democracy and International
Monetary Power: a Critique of New Constitutionalism.” Globalizations 9 (2),
Article 2. Available at: http://services.bepress.com/globalizations/vol9/iss2/
art2. Accessed 10 May 2017.
Van Langenhove, Luk. 2011. Building Regions: The Regionalization of the World
Order. London: Ashgate.
———. 2012. Why We Need to ‘Unpack’ Regions to Compare Them More
Effectively. International Spectator 47 (1): 16–29.
Warleigh-Lack, Alex, Nick Robinson, and Ben Rosamond. 2011. New Regionalism
and the European Union: Dialogues, Comparisons, and Research Directions.
London/New York: Routledge.
INDEX
A C
Acquis, 129 Common Economic Space, 135, 139,
See also Community acquis 140, 142, 144, 150n42
Analytic narrative, 14 Common spaces, 20, 119, 135,
Armenia, 4, 106n14, 131–133, 139, 146
141, 146n2, 147n3, 147n7 Commonwealth of Independent States,
Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), 187 131, 138
Association Agreement (AA), 4, 129, Community acquis, 84
131–133, 139, 141, 145, 182 Competitive behavior, 48
Association of South-East Asian Nations Competitive liberalization, 33
(ASEAN), 7, 16, 188 Conditionality, 11, 38, 92, 95, 104,
Azerbaijan, 4, 106n14, 133, 139, 122, 123, 126, 127, 206
146n2, 147n7 membership conditionality, 84
Constraining dissensus, 19, 96,
106n13
B Constructivism, 40, 44, 45, 164,
Belarus, 4, 131, 133, 139–142, 146n2, 176
147n3, 147n7, 150n37 Cooperative hegemony, 41, 173, 189,
Benevolent empire, 18, 105, 116 190
Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), 185 Creative destruction, 19, 86, 97–100
Brexit, 5, 10, 14, 19, 30, 52, 82, 101, Cross-regional cooperation, 17
163, 179–182, 191, 192n9, Customs union, 2, 40, 52, 57, 138, 139,
193n18, 212, 217 141, 171, 181, 192n1
U
T Ukraine, 4, 126, 129, 131–134, 136,
Territoriality, 8, 34, 162, 164, 166–170, 139, 141, 144, 146n2, 147n7
173, 175, 177, 189, 191
Trade creation, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 21,
33, 34, 38, 56, 60, 63, 64, 97, V
99–102, 131, 138–140, 143, 182, Vilnius Summit, 133
188, 189, 204, 208
Trade diversion, 33, 34, 51, 63, 131,
139, 178 W
Trade liberalization, 33, 35, 37, 38, Western Balkans, 4, 19, 97, 104, 105n2,
60–62, 98, 99, 121–123, 127, 107n20, 117, 136, 160, 206
130, 139, 174, 182, 183, 187, White Paper, 180, 192n10
188, 217 Working peace system, 42, 53, 79