EUROPEAN ENLARGEMENT WAVES

European Enlargement Waves



European Enlargement Waves

Introduction

The enlargement impact has not yet attracted any major research interest. Passing references can be tracked in works dealing with particular aspects of the EU interest intermediation system (e.g. Coen 1997 and Cowles 1998 on the role of big business; Greenwood 1997 and 1998 on labour associations and professions; Young 1998 on consumer associations; Greenwood 1997 on the representation of territorial interests) or specific EU policy sectors (e.g. Lequesne 2005 on the fisheries policy; Lewis and Abraham 2001 on the pharmaceutical sector; Bartle 1999 and Eising 1999 on electricity and telecommunications). However, in the absence of any systematic data collection, the scarce evidence is haphazard and cannot lead to any meaningful generalisable conclusions. We structure our argument in two sections. In the first section, we present the analytical framework and provide examples to substantiate our claims. We distinguish between the enlargement effect on the structural properties (organisational features and resources) and the effect on the agenda content (scope of associational agenda, embraced policy direction, inter-group balance) of an EU-wide interest association (Eurogroup). In the second section, we discuss the parameters that condition the enlargement effect. These parameters are clustered in two groups related to (a) the source (countries of each 'enlargement wave') and (b) the target (Eurogroup structure and modus operandi) of the enlargement impact. The conclusion summarises the main propositions and expands the framework beyond the association-specific level.

Enlargement Impact on Eurogroups

The existing literature on the Europeanisation of interest groups primarily focuses on the changes European integration induces on national interest group associations and the political and economic environment within which they operate. The 'top-down' direction of Europeanisation, namely the impact of EU integration on the domestic, national system of state-society intermediation, has been consistently analysed both with regard to the content (i.e. adaptation/response) and modality (i.e. transmission mechanisms) of change (e.g. Beyers and Kerremans 2007; Saurugger 2005; Eising 2003; Grote and Lang 2003; Cowles 2001; Lehmkuhl 2000). However, Europeanisation is a two-way process: the 'bottom-up' dimension explores the underlying dynamics and potential outcomes of European integration as well as the national (i.e. member state) contribution to it (Boumlrzel 2002). In terms of national interest groups, this means that they are not only passive takers but also make their distinct contribution to the EU system. The uploading of their structural features or policy preferences increases the policy-making input of national interest groups and potentially reduces the risk of an output contrary to their preferences.

At the Eurogroup level, this 'bottom-up' dimension entails an impact on the structural properties and/or the agenda content of the association (see Table 1). Structural properties comprise both the particular organisational features of the association in question as well as the resources available for the pursuit of the associational goals and objectives. Agenda content refers to the scope of the associational agenda, issue salience, and the policy direction embraced by the Eurogroup (intra-associational balance). The underlying logic is that enlargement increases the number of socioeconomic actors involved in the ...