Content uploaded by Krzysztof Wach
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Krzysztof Wach on Jan 03, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 1
Europeanisation: Its De nition, Research
Approaches and Dimensions1
Krzysztof Wach
Cracow University of Economics
1.1. Introduction
Nowadays Europeanisation is a very popular research theme in many scientifi c
fi elds, mainly in political science and economics or management science, but also in
sociology, anthropology, or history. It is useful to identify the context in which the
Europeanisation process occurs. Taking into account the assumptions of contex-
tualism, it must be stressed that the interaction context plays a key role in explain-
ing the process [-es] of Europeanisation, as it [they] is [are] formed by a particular
context. Hence, an adequate interpretation of the phenomenon of Europeanisation
is not possible without taking into account the context in which it occurs. ere
are three main ongoing meta processes in the modern globalised economy under-
stood as a systematic series of actions or a continuous action, operation, or series
of changes, namely internationalisation, Europeanisation and globalisation. As they
create a complex of three interlinked elements, ex defi nitione they are a kind of triad
(Wach, 2014a). All three processes (internationalisation, Europeanisation, globalisa-
tion) may have diff erent faces, dimensions, horizons, perspectives and levels.
e main objective of this chapter is to analyse the Europeanisation processes in
the wider context and to discuss Europeanisation from the defi nitional perspective
as well as to present current research approaches to Europeanisation and to show its
dimensions and eff ects on everyday life in the European Union from the economic
perspective. e study is based on a typical literature review using the conventional
research methods of deduction, reduction, synthesis and theoretical modelling.
1 e chapter was prepared under project No. 542456-LLP-1-2013-1-PL-AJM-MO entitled
“Macro- and Microeconomic Dimensions of Europeanisation” co-fi nanced by the European Commis-
sion in the years 2013-2016.
Suggested citation:
Wach, K. (2016). Europeanisation: Its Definition, Research Approaches and
Dimenions (Chapter 1). In: P. Stanek & K. Wach (Eds.), Macro-, Meso- and
Microeconomic Dimensions of Europeanisation. Warszawa: PWN (pp. 15-31).
16 Part I. Conceptual and Methodological Issues
1.2. Defi ning Europeanisation
In the discourse on the phenomenon of Europeanisation or European economic inte-
gration, the taxonomy of the conceptual apparatus is not univocal, its systematics,
and sometimes the lack of it, leaves much to be desired, which from the present time
perspective is emphasised by K.Holzinger and F. Schimmelfenning (2012, p. 292):
“it is astonishing how poor our research and knowledge about the phenomenon is”.
A precise determination and sometimes even the delimitation of such related terms
as Europeanisation, Europeifi cation, EU-isation, Euroisation, Europeism or European
integration itself is of key signifi cance for scientifi c analysis and research into the
Europeanisation process.
Currently, Europeanisation is a trendy and commonly used phrase, however,
it may be misunderstood because the term refers to numerous phenomena which
are occurring now on the European continent. Research into Europeanisation
goes back to the 1970s, although its bloom fell in the last decade of the 20th cen-
tury and is continued now, which is proven by bibliometric analyses on this2. We
should agree with K. Dyson’s opinion (2002, p. 3) that in the literature on the
subject there is not a scientifi cally stringent defi nition of Europeanisation which
still remains a relatively “theoretical interest and has produced more questions
than answers”.
A.Moravcsik, W.Sandholtz and B.Kohler-Koch are regarded as the main pre-
cursors of the Europeanisation concept. eir concepts were established in the
European integration theory in the 1990s. e fi rst of them, being a representa-
tive of the stream of intergovernmentalism within the regional integration theory, is
considered to be the author of the bottom-up, downloading approach explaining the
infl uence of integration processes on individual countries (Moravicsik, 1994). On the
other hand, W.Sandholtz’s views in this respect were of adversative character com-
pared to Moravicsik’s views. In his opinion, integration creates new opportunities
for domestic entities, resulting in institutional changes and changes in shaping and
conducting individual policies. e solution is based on the multi-levelness concept
and is identical to the top-down approach (Sandholt, 1996, pp.403–429). e third
parallel concept, developed by B.Kohler-Koch (1996, pp.359–380), is based on the
idea of the transformation of governance.
In the author’s opinion, not only does integration contribute to a multi-level
distribution of the impact but also to the removal of borders between the public and
the private sphere, and in consequence of these changes an evolutionary transforma-
tion takes place.
2 e results of the bibliometric analysis on the circulation of Europeanisation terms in the sci-
entifi c literature are discussed, among others, in the works (Featherstone, 2003, pp.5-6; Exadaktylos
& Radaelli, 2009, pp. 514-516).
Chapter 1. Europeanisation: Its De nition, Research Approaches and Dimensions 17
When placing the concepts of Europeanisation in a chronological order, we should
mention two more fi gures here. In the mid-1990s R.Ladrech (1999, pp.69-88) pro-
vided one of the fi rst acknowledged defi nitions of Europeanisation, and C.M.Radaelli
(1997; 2000) is regarded as one of the major conceptuologists and propagators of
research into Europeanisation, along with fi gures such as T.Börzel and T. Risse3.
He is the author of the now most commonly used defi nition of Europeanisation
from the late 1990s. eir contribution will be discussed in detail in the next parts
of this chapter.
After a few years of his own studies and analyses, in 2002 J.P. Olsen asked the
question of what Europeanisation exactly is and whether this concept is scientifi -
cally useful (Olsen, 2002; 1996). A decade after posing this question for the fi rst
time it still remains open, and the literature on that is clearly fragmentary. We can
assume that creating the scientifi c bases of Europeanisation was an answer to the
common use of this term, i.e. the methodology of empiricism (of empirical school)
was adopted here from management studies. us, the concept of Europeanisation
in the literature on the subject is defi ned as “a phenomenon without origin” (Gellner
& Smith, 1996, pp.357-370).
An analysis of scientifi c studies devoted to that issue allows to adopt a very gen-
eral defi nition of Europeanisation, constructed as a real defi nition. Europeanisation,
let us call it ex defi nitione, according to K. Dyson (2002, p.3) is “a process unfold-
ing over time and through complex interactive variables it provides contradictory,
divergent and contingent eff ects”. It should be emphasised that this is a very gen-
eral defi nition of Europeanisation, even of a generic character, not indicating the
dimensions of the impact of Europeanisation (the lack of precision is a fl aw of this
defi nition). Its generality, however, can be treated as an advantage, because it gives
the possibility to apply it according to the needs of almost all scientifi c disciplines.
Similarly, T.Flockhart (2010, p. 788) defi nes Europeanisation as a dynamic, multi-
form process of the diff usion of European thought, procedures and customs in time
and space. According to this author, the Europeanisation process has strong histori-
cal connotations, especially sociological ones, which was manifested by the reference
in the project of the Constitutional Treaty to the origins of the European civilisation,
its cultural, religious and humanist heritage of the Roman Empire, Greek Empire or
the Enlightenment (European Convention, 2003).
Nowadays, the term Europeanisation more and more often refers to the European
Union itself rather than to Europe or the European civilisation, which constitutes
adistortion of the etymology of this term. Consequently, some authors postulate
to separate Europeanisation and EU-isation, but a great majority of researchers
apply those terms interchangeably or, more commonly, only the fi rst term is used.
3 Some of their fi rst works, although based on their earlier studies, are (Börzel & Risse, 2000;
Green-Cowles, Caporaso, & Risse 2000).
18 Part I. Conceptual and Methodological Issues
For example, R.Ladrech (1999, p. 71) treats Europeanisation as “an incremental
process reorienting the direction and shape of politics to the degree that EC political
and economic dynamics become part of the organisational logic of national poli-
tics and policy-making”. In fact, this is one of the fi rst acknowledged defi nitions of
Europeanisation. Similarly, T.Börzel (1999, p. 574) interprets the phenomenon as
“a process by which domestic policy areas become increasingly subject to European
policy-making”. S.Bulmer and M. Burch (2001, p.73) treat Europeanisation very
similarly as a set of processes through which political, social and economic dynam-
ics of the European Union display interactions with the logics of national discourse,
national identity, domestic political structures and domestic public politicians. is
last defi nition actually combines two defi nitions, as it uses the bottom-up and the
top-down mechanism.
As H.Wallance (2000, pp.369-382) rightly postulates, in order to avoid an open
constraint and a historical conceptualisation of the Europeanisation process, we
should introduce the term EU-isation for the processes that concern the European
Union only4. us, EU-isation concerns the European process related to the insti-
tutional dimension of the European Union, both on the community level and on the
level of the Member States, manifested mainly in the transfer of institutional and
organisational procedures and policies (Flockhart, 2010, p.791). EU-isation under-
stood in this way is a small but signifi cant section of a much broader Europeanisation
process, being, in addition to Americanisation, a particular case of occidentalisation
(westernisation). is book adopts the view of S. Bulmer and Ch.Lequesne (2001,
p.10), who prove on the basis of their own analysis of the scientifi c discourse under-
taking the subject of Europeanisation that the term refers now mainly to the study
of the impact of the European Union on its Member States, but they emphasise that
EU-isation would be a better term here if not for the horrifi c sound of this neolo-
gism. To conclude, in this book Europeanisation will be perceived as the infl uence
of multi-form Europeanisation processes with regard to the European Union, both
in the endo- and exogenous dimension, and thus it will be treated as a specifi c form
of Europeanisation.
T.Lawton (1999, pp.91-112) represents a diff erent approach. Based on the prin-
ciples of antagonistic analysis, he defi nes Europeifi cation as the division of power
4 Humanists rightly postulate the separation of those terms. However, in applied social studies
this issue is not discussed. e term Europeanisation is in its bloom, which is directly connected to the
growing role of the European Union on the international arena, and the term Europeanisation itself is
now undergoing the same transformations that the term Americanisation used to undergo. Just like
American and Americanisation etymologically refer to the whole continent, or even two – North and
South America, in practice the terms are identifi ed with the United States of North America (even
among humanists themselves). At present, Europeanisation, and recently even European, more and
more often refer to the European Union itself. erefore, we can be tempted to say that this is an eff ect
of the Darwinian theory of evolutionism according to which the strongest player dominates a given
population.
Chapter 1. Europeanisation: Its De nition, Research Approaches and Dimensions 19
between national governments and the European Union as a supranational body,
unlike Europeanisation which he treats as a transfer of sovereignty from the level
of the Member States to the community level. His understanding of Europeifi cation
is identical to the Europeanisation concept discussed before, based on the model of
multi-level governance in the aspect of European integration. e literature on the
subject is not univocal here and it is diffi cult to give the proper meaning of this term.
To sum up, Europeanisation is defi nitely an ambiguous term, variously per-
ceived and analysed from diff erent points of view. Currently, it is among eagerly
undertaken research problems, although it is still poorly structured. is is where
the need to attempt to conceptualise and especially operationalise it comes from.
In research using deterministic models Europeanisation can be perceived both as
a dependent and independent variable, which is undoubtedly directly connected
to the perspective of the undertaken research and the research objective itself. In
this book, Europeanisation will be chiefl y discussed as an explained variable, but it
will also be treated as a predictor, namely an explanatory variable. e above over-
view of the terms has enabled a deterministic identifi cation of their mutual rela-
tionships, which constitutes a basis for a further detailed discussion on economic
Europeanisation.
1.3. e Main Research Approaches to Europeanisation
Taking into account the philosophical systematics, we can distinguish three main
areas of research on Europeanisation, namely ontology, epistemology and method-
ology. e ontology of Europeanisation deals with studying the structure and char-
acter of the Europeanisation process. It provides an answer to the question of what
Europeanisation is and what its components are. e epistemology of Europeanisation
discusses the method of exploring the Europeanisation process, and in this sense it
analyses what the object of the Europeanisation research is, its relations between
theory and practice, or what its limits are. Unlike the two mentioned areas, the
methodology of Europeanisation is the least developed. It works out the systematic
procedures of exploring the Europeanisation process and instruments of improving
the research process within that scope.
In the research on the Europeanisation process we can, after R.Holzhacker and
M.Haverland (2006, pp.1-18), distinguish three waves which in fact constitute three
generations of European studies (studies into European integration), the result of
which is the formation of a separate, structured theoretical and conceptual frame-
work for Europeanisation as an arising separate research fi eld. We can apply at least
three research approaches to the Europeanisation process (Figure 1.1). e fi rst one
is the bottom-up approach, the second one is the top-down approach, whereas the
third one is the cycle/circular approach.
20 Part I. Conceptual and Methodological Issues
First
generation
Second
generation
Third
generation
circular
approach
top-down
approach
approach
Europeanisation as a research problem
since the 1970s 1990s turn of the 20th and 21st century
bottom-up
Figure 1.1. Research approaches to the Europeanisation process from the temporary perspec-
tive.
Source: own study.
Bottom-up approach
e fi rst wave was devoted to the analysis of the European integration process and
the institutional development of the European Union, as well as the directions of
the evolution of its policy. e research was principally carried out in accordance
with the methodology used for international relations, but in that period mainly
institutional, legal, economic and political factors were analysed. e institutional
system of the European Union (in fact, of the European Communities) was treated
as an exogenous factor in relation to the Member States. Treating European integra-
tion as an exemplifi cation of the regionalisation process in international relations, as
B.Nowak and R.Riedel (2010, p. 213) emphasise, was part of this stream.
e democratic approach, initiated in the mid-1970s (Haas, 1958; Lindberg et
al., 1971), more often defi ned with reference to Europeanisation as the bottom-
up approach, bases on groups of interests and networks of connections which are
an instrument by means of which the preferences of individual bottom-up groups
are considered on the level of the EU, infl uencing the development of its politi-
cal structures (Howell, 2004, p.21). We may assume that the comprehensive the-
ory, being the foundation for this approach, was created by A. Moravcsik, along
Chapter 1. Europeanisation: Its De nition, Research Approaches and Dimensions 21
with apresentation of his liberal intergovernmental approach. e claim that the
European Union strengthens national states was his crucial assumption (Moravcsik,
1994). It was, as it seems, one of the most criticised theoretical concepts of European
integration, although as a result of the criticism, Moravcsik himself transformed it
and completed the model with the missing variables. He perceived European inte-
gration from the point of view of R. Coase’s theory of transaction costs. He claimed
that the European Union is only a passive negotiation forum for the Member States,
which enables them to conclude transactions between each other more eff ectively by
way of areduction of the transaction costs (Moravcsik, 1993, pp.507-508). Such an
approach is defi ned as an inductive or gradual approach, meaning that “the causal
fl ow was predominantly from state and society of the member states to the regional
organisation” (Caporaso, 2007, pp.24-26).
Top-down approach
e second wave of the research treated Europeanisation as an explanatory factor
for the changes occurring at Member State level. Mainly the comparative perspective
was used here, based on the scientifi c methods of comparatistics. In accordance with
the assumptions of this stream, the European Union and its institutional system was
treated as a separate political system. “A shift of national sovereignty was observed,
from a decentralised system in which the major role was played by national execu-
tives and ministries infl uencing the EU within bilateral and multilateral relations”,
which was typical for the fi rst stream, towards “a supra- and subnational community
which achieved some ability of self-regulation, which was related to the growth and
institutionalisation of the decision-making system” (Nowak & Riedel 2010, p.213).
e centralistic approach, thriving in the 1990s, more often defi ned in European
studies as the top-down approach, is closely connected with the classical perception
of the European integration process, and in this context Europeanisation is a con-
temporary synonym of European integration (Bulmer & Gamble, 2002, pp.4-24).
It is worth emphasising that an important eff ect of Europeanisation processes is
domestic change in three dimensions, namely in domestic political views (politics),
domestic political strategy (policy) and the domestic political system (polity). In this
sense, Europeanisation is an independent variable infl uencing the three mentioned
dimensions, being dependent variables (Börzel & Risse 2000, pp.3-5). In this context,
K.Dyson and K.H. Goetz (2003) indicate the phenomenon of coercion pressure5
that the Member States are subject to. In this stream, Europeanisation is most often
defi ned after T.Risse, M.G.Cowles and J.A.Caporaso (2000, p. 3) as “the emergence
5 Coercion is a term borrowed from physics where it means the strength of the external magnetic
fi eld necessary to demagnetise a ferromagnetic material.
22 Part I. Conceptual and Methodological Issues
and development at the European level of distinct structures of governance, that is,
of political, legal and social institutions associated with political problem solving that
formalises interactions among the actors, and of policy networks specialising in the
creation of authoritative European rules”.
e defi nition proposed by C.M.Radaelli (2006, p. 58) may be an elaboration
of the top-down approach, claiming that: “Europeanisation consists of processes of
(a) construction b) diff usion and c) institutionalisation of formal and informal rules,
procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ‘ways of doing things’ and shared beliefs and
norms which are fi rst defi ned and consolidated in the making of EU decisions and
then incorporated in the logic of domestic discourse, identities, political structures
and public policies”, and this is in fact the most frequently cited defi nition of the
Europeanisation process in the literature.
W.Sandholtz (1996, p. 403 and pp. 417-427) had a great impact on the shap-
ing of the top-down approach. According to him, the institutional system of the
European Union may infl uence the Member States in three broadly understood
dimensions,namely:
• by making the EU institutions autonomous entities which may use autono-
mous enforcement mechanisms towards the Member States;
• by creating choices for domestic entities with regard to the selection of allies
and arenas of activity, whereby the EU institutions themselves (most often
the European Commission) can be the initiators and petitioners of the direc-
tions of transformations as well as the political allies;
• by encouraging changes in national policies and institutions, which have not
been considered before by the Member States.
W.Sandholtz criticised the bottom-up approach indicating numerous concep-
tual inconsistencies, while he promoted the top-down approach, at the same time
favouring the analysis of the European Union decision-making process in accordance
with the theory of policy networks. We should emphasise here that the theoretical
bases of the inter-organisational network (the network theory in management stud-
ies) are not totally coherent in the case of the European Union either. However, even
at the present stage of the development of the European Union we can fi nd numer-
ous analogies to a network organisation, which can be proven by its following attrib-
utes (in accordance with the qualities of a network organisation in management)6:
• mutual coordination of operations and the adjustment of operations in the
sphere of procedures;
• decisions are taken not only individually but also jointly in the designated
area of cooperation;
• repetitive character of exchange and intentions of cooperation comprising
alonger time horizon;
6 Qualities of a network organisation cited after (Łobos, 2008, pp.195-196).
Chapter 1. Europeanisation: Its De nition, Research Approaches and Dimensions 23
• extensive scope of information about the partners of cooperation, accessible
to the network entities.
e top-down approach treats European integration as an independent variable
in relation to the Europeanisation of the Member States, performing the role of
adependent variable. Integration processes are explicative factors for understanding
the changes occurring at national level. e research adopting this approach con-
cerned, using the terminology of statistical methods, as it is defi ned in the literature
of the subject, the goodness of fi t – the EU and the domestic one. us, the neces-
sityof the occurrence of misfi t is implicit to be able to even talk about adjusting to
the requirements of the European Union.
Circular approach
e currently arising third wave in the research on European integration and
Europeanisation is the attempt to create a holistic concept, both a description
andexplication, assuming a mutual link between these processes, and at the same time
combining the two prevailing research approaches so far – the bottom-up and the
top-down approach. e latest literature on the subject, contrary to the two preced-
ing research waves (which are regarded as the classical approaches to European stud-
ies on European integration), separates European integration and Europeanisation,
however manifesting far-fetched cause and eff ect dependencies between them. is
burgeoning research approach, although interdisciplinary in its assumptions, is based
mainly on the transformations that have taken place in the economic sphere, per-
haps in the regulatory (administrative and legal) sphere, which directly or indirectly
infl uences macroeconomic, microeconomic and managerial processes.
R.Holzhacker and M.Haverland (2006, p.6), together with their associates, pos-
tulate the need to move on to a third generation of research, which they call “akind
of cork-screw rotating continuously”, with top-down and bottom-up processes of
interaction between the EU and the national levels of governance. According to
T.A.Börzel (2002, p.193), the Europeanisation process can be simultaneously identi-
fi ed as uploading within the meaning of the development of European Union insti-
tutions, and as downloading within the normative European Union regulations. As
K.E.Howell (2004, p. 56) observes, the majority of the authors of the bottom-up
approach in particular, in their conceptualisations notice the interactivity of both
types of Europeanisation. In this context, an interesting concept of three types of
the Europeanisation process was proposed by K. Dyson and K.H. Goetz (2003,
pp.14-16). ey observed similar mechanisms to the described ones, but in spite
of this they developed their own, diff erent systematics. ey distinguish two basic
approaches, namely the perspective of downloading and the interactive perspective
(considering both downloading and uploading). e downloading approach may be
24 Part I. Conceptual and Methodological Issues
discussed narrowly or broadly. In the narrow meaning downloading is of a hierarchi-
cal nature and should be identifi ed with the top-down approach discussed before.
On the other hand, in a broad sense, downloading is treated as both hierarchical and
vertical processes, which, in turn, should be identifi ed with the combined bottom-up
and top-down approach, as each time the same downloading mechanism operates
here, only the sender is diff erent. A dynamic interaction occurs between individual
levels – the European Union one and the domestic one.
Attention should be paid to the fact that at present horizontal links play a sig-
nifi cant role in the process of the Europeanisation of individual Member States.
Although the so-called hard instruments of Europeanisation (mainly legislation) are
still applied, more and more often the so-called soft instruments, typical for verti-
cal cooperation, are used. ese include the open method of coordinating (OMC),
benchmarking and the best practice, as well as the exchange of professionalists. e
methods give a mimetic eff ect, to which a lot of attention is currently paid in terms
of Europeanisation.
As K. Featherstone and G. Kazamias (2001, p. 1) rightly observe, both domes-
tic and community entities (broadly understood) are co-dependent, and fi rst of all
they are involved in networks of links, both horizontal and vertical ones, by which
both mentioned approaches (bottom-up and top-down) create an entirety. Similar
arguments can be found in other works (Howell, 2002, p.21). While implementing
the methodology of planning within this scope, anchored in management studies,
particularly in the aspect of vertical and horizontal links, it is worth making atrans-
position resulting in the identifi cation of two special approaches (apart from the
democratic and the centralistic approach), namely the iterative approach and the
multi-level approach. e essence of the methodological iterative approach (the so-
called core-periphery approach) is the development of assumptions in agreement
with individual levels, the EU and domestic ones, in subsequent steps (iterations).
e method is based on cyclically repeating consultations and arrangements among
the Member States. Whereas the essence of the multi-level methodological approach
is the development of the assumptions simultaneously (parallel) at all levels, both the
EU level and the domestic levels, and only then the assumptions created this way
are agreed upon. As K.E.Howell (2002, p. 19) emphasises, Europeanisation means
constant interactions or dialectics between the “homogeneity” of the Union and the
“diversity” of the individual Member States.
K.E.Howell (2005, pp. 379-392) attempted to order the Europeanisation theo-
ries. In addition to the uploading and downloading approach, he also distinguished
the crossloading approach. In his opinion, the eff ectiveness of the uploading pro-
cess determines the eff ectiveness of change in response to the downloading process
(Howell, 2005, p. 380). us, the Europeanisation process must be perceived
bi polarly, considering both the horizontal and the vertical impact. Within such
ameaning of Europeanisation processes, which is quite signifi cant, a clear separation
Chapter 1. Europeanisation: Its De nition, Research Approaches and Dimensions 25
of Europeanisation processes from European integration, which triggers them,
occurs here (Figure 1.2). Obviously, methodologically, it is much simpler to conduct
empirical research, considering the assumptions of the top-down or the bottom-up
approach. e issue becomes much more complicated when it is necessary to apply
both sets of methodological assumptions at the same time (mix of methodologies).
However, the phenomenon of diff usion occurs here, which results in a kind of iso-
morphism of both perspectives, and in consequence, a necessity to consider both
research perspectives.
European Integration
Europeanisation Type 1:
downloading
Europeanisation Type 2:
uploading
Europeanisation Type 3:
crossloading
vertical transfer of changes
Macro
Level
– Member States
Micro
Level
– national interest groups
Figure 1.2. e processes of Europeanisation as European integration mechanisms.
Source: Howell (2005, p. 382).
However, going further in the ordering process, it is worth proposing a modi-
fi cation of the quoted concept, which should be based on three approaches to the
Europeanisation process, distinguishing, in addition to the top-down and bottom-
up approach, a third approach, which can be called the circular approach, using
both of the aforementioned approaches simultaneously7. is concept treats all three
approaches a little diff erently than the ones proposed by K.Dyson and K.H. Goetz
(2003), although it derives from them.
1.4. e Economic Dimensions of Europeanisation
An analysis of the literature on the subject of Europeanisation also enables the sys-
tematisation of the existing output from the point of view of the operationalisation of
7 e majority of authors identify the third approach with the second one (bottom-up approach),
argumenting that it is only the completion of the top-down approach. In economic studies, and es-
pecially in management studies, the mentioned research approaches to the functioning of a fi rm may
function separately and independently, thus, it seems justifi ed to distinguish three as opposed to two
approaches.
26 Part I. Conceptual and Methodological Issues
Europeanisation in the substantive approach. Analogously, as in the case of the con-
ceptualisation and operationalisation of the development category in economic stud-
ies, one not only can but in fact one must adopt the same four designates of economic
Europeanisation, both in the macro- and microeconomic perspective. ese are:
• the areas of Europeanisation (what Europeanises?);
• the factors of Europeanisation (why does it Europeanise?);
• the mechanisms of Europeanisation (how does it Europeanise?);
• the sense of Europeanisation (towards what does it Europeanise?).
erefore, considering the subjective criterion, we can distinguish four basic
research approaches, namely polyvalent, causative, processual and resultant, although
the present literature on the subject does not assign the same attention to them, does
not discuss them with equal frequency, and if such research is undertaken, it is frag-
mentary and conducted mainly from the point of view of political sciences, namely
in terms of the macroenvironment. us, as it seems, there is an urgent need to
undertake research on the Europeanisation process from the perspective of economic
studies, especially at fi rm level (the microeconomic level).
It is worth ordering the areas of infl uence of Europeanisation, i.e. making an
attempt at identifying and structuring the dimensions of Europeanisation. In this
context, one may be tempted to distinguish 10 or even 12 basic dimensions of
Europeanisation including both non-economic and economic dimensions. is con-
cept is in fact used to describe changes in many dimensions of life, including geo-
graphical, sociological, political, legal, institutional and economic ones (Figure 1.3).
From the methodological point of view, there are fi ve analytical levels, namely
(i) mega, (ii)macro, (iii) meso, (iv)micro, and (v) nano. However, only three of
them are mostly used in economics (macro, meso, micro), thus it seems adequate
to discuss three processes – macroeconomic, mesoeconomic and microeconomic
Europeanisation.
Europeanisation in the external macroeconomic dimension is making Europe
(and more specifi cally the European Union) a signifi cant economic centre in the
world, identifi ed with the intensifi cation of its role, at least within the existing Triad
(United States – European Union – Japan), although with aspirations to play a major
role in the world economy, particularly as a response to the globalisation processes,
including the growing signifi cance of China and India in the world economy. At
present, the share of the EU in the world economy is bigger than of the US or Japan
and constitutes 1/5 of the global trade (and considering the intercommunity turnover
among the Member States it is as much as 34.2%), whereas EU foreign direct invest-
ment constitutes almost half of global direct investment. It is worth stressing that as
early as in 2010 China became the main exporter of telecommunications equipment
(USD 180 billion, with annual dynamics of growth of over 400%), and thus for the
fi rst time it outran the European Union (EU-27), becoming the main re-exporter of
such equipment (WTO 2011, p. 55). In spite of the continuing crisis, in 2010 the
Chapter 1. Europeanisation: Its De nition, Research Approaches and Dimensions 27
export of fi nancial services in the EU-27 increased by 3% and constituted 49% of the
global trade of these services (USD 130 billion) (WTO 2011, p. 139).
Europeanisation in the internal macroeconomic dimension is creating favour-
able conditions for, on the one hand, the development of fi rms in the European
Union territory (the European business environment, and to be more exact –
Europeanisation of the fi rm environment), and on the other hand – the convergence
of the macroeconomic systems of individual EU Member States. e regulatory func-
tion of the European Union plays a signifi cant role here.
Europeanisation in the mesoeconomic sense is observed in industries, as most of
them are becoming Pan-European and not just national, as other European competi-
tors are their direct competitors and industries are regulated in general by the same
EU law and the same regulations (e.g. the tobacco industry, mobile communications
industry, banking industry). is dimension of mesoeconomic Europeanisation is
becoming more and more important.
Figure 1.3. Twelve dimensions of Europeanisation within the context of the European Union.
Source: Wach (2015, p. 16).
BUSINESS EUROPEANISATION
Non-Economic Europeanisation
territorial dimension
socio-cultural dimension
legal dimension
administration dimension
political dimension
geopolitical demension
external macroeconomic dimension
internal macroeconomic dimension
mesoeconomic dimension
microeconomic dimension
managerial dimension
Economic Europeanisation
Dimensions of Europeanisation within the Context of the EU
education & research dimension
education dimension
linguistic dimension
research dimension
28 Part I. Conceptual and Methodological Issues
Europeanisation in terms of the microeconomic dimension is identifi ed as
the Europeanisation of businesses. By contrast, in terms of microeconomics, Euro-
peanisation is a process of the internationalisation of a business in Europe through
its expansion to the European Union markets (a business activity in the common
market, the so-called Single European Market) (Harris & McDonald, 2004, p. 73).
Furthermore, there is also a very important managerial dimension of
Europeanisation, which is connected to the specifi cs and characteristics of European
business (European management style), which is very diff erent from American busi-
ness or Asian business (Fligstein, 2009; Floyd, 2001; Wach, 2014b; Wach, 2016).
1.5. Conclusions
e European Union is currently facing severe challenges not only in terms of its
internal problems, but mainly in terms of its future in the international arena. ese
concerns are not only expressed by the opponents of European integration, or scep-
tics, who in fact have always expressed such concerns, but these fears are also shared
by its supporters, which defi nitely is a worrying symptom. e current image of the
European Union and the challenges it faces are well captured by A.Giddens (2007)
in his book Europe in the Global Age. Is further and deeper Europeanisation thus
compromised? Certainly, the times in which we live today and in which businesses
operate are interesting, and at the same time cause enormous challenges for modern
economies and businesses.
ere has been a transformation of the world economic globalisation processes
giving rise to the phenomenon of semiglobalisation, which according to M.W. Peng
(2009, p. 20) indicates the need for a variety of strategic business experiments. While
P. Ghemawat (2007, p. 31) believes that the prospect of semiglobalisation can help
fi rms to fend off the illusion of a global standardisation (one-size-fi ts-all), and the
apocalypse concerning the downturn in economic growth. Diff erent researchers have
focused their attention on global activities, which oppose local activities, and by
semiglobalisation they understand the intermediate state on the way from being
alocal to a global fi rm employing full economic integration in the world. However,
the percentage (as quantifi cation) identifying the current state is very diverse.
e European Union, but also Europe as a whole, is now facing the great global
challenges that primarily relate to economic issues. As stipulated by H. Sirkin, in
his world-famous book: Globality: Competing with Everyone from Everywhere for
Everything, in the near future European, American and Japanese fi rms will com-
pete not only with each other but also with very competitive Chinese, Indian,
South American, and even African fi rms, which currently is unimaginable (Kotler &
Caslione, 2009, p. 29). e forecasts that by 2030 developing countries and emerging
economies will reach 60% of global GDP could radically change the global economic
Chapter 1. Europeanisation: Its De nition, Research Approaches and Dimensions 29
confi guration. us, it can be assumed that the European Union as well as the pro-
cesses of Europeanisation are now at a crossroads. Not only the forecasts for the next
two decades (with the possibility that the consequences of such a reconfi guration will
be felt much earlier), but also already the current situation of the United States and
the European Union, indicate the need for a strategy redefi nition and reconfi gura-
tion as well as anticipatory action supporting European businesses and European
economies (or even the European economy).
References
Börzel, T. (1999). Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to Europeanization in
Germany and Spain. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(4), pp. 389-403.
Börzel, T. (2002). Member State Responses to Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2),
pp. 193-214.
Börzel, T., & Risse, T. (2000). When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Change. EUI
Working Papers, RSC No. 2000/56, European University Institute in Florence.
Bulmer, J., & Lequesne, Ch. (2001). New Perspectives on EU-Member State Relationship, Paper for the
European Community Studies Association Biennial Conference, May 31 – June 2, 2001, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Bulmer, S., & Burch, M. (2001). e Europeanisation of Central Government: e UK and Germany in
Historical Institutionalist Perspective. In: G.Schneider & M. Aspinwall (Eds.). e Rules of Integration:
Institutionalist Approaches to the Study of Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Caporaso, J. (2007). e ree Worlds of Regional Integration eory (pp. 24-26). In: Graziano, P., Vink
M.P., (Eds.), Europeanization. New Research Agendas. New York.
Dyson, K. (2002). Introduction: EMU as Integration, Europeanization and Convergence. In: Dyson, K.,
(Ed.), European States and the Euro. Europeanization, Variation and Convergence. Oxford–New York:
Oxford University Press.
Dyson, K., & Goetz, K.H. (2003). Living with Europe: Power, Constraint and Contestation. In: K. K.Dyson
& K.H. Goetz (Eds.). Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press (series: “Proceeding of the British Academy” 2003, Vol. 119).
European Convention (2003). Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. Luxembourg: Offi ce for
Offi cial Publications of the European Communities.
Exadaktylos, ., & Radaelli, C.M. (2009). Research Design in European Studies: e Case of Europeanization.
Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(3), pp. 507-530.
Featherstone, K. (2003). In the Name of Europe (pp. 3-26). In: Featherstone, K., Radaelli, C.M., (Eds.), e
Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Featherstone, K., & Kazamias, G. (2001). Introduction: Southern Europe and the Process of Europeanisation.
In: Featherstone, K., Kazamias, G., (Eds.), Europeanisation and the Southern Periphery. London: Frank
Cass.
Fligstein, N. (2009). e Europeanization of Business. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie,
special issue 49, pp. 107-124.
Flockhart, T. (2010). Europeanization or EU-ization? e Transfer of European Norms across Time and
Space. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(4), pp. 787-810.
Floyd, D. (2001). Globalisation or Europeanisation of Business Activity? Exploring the Critical Issues.
European Business Review, 13(2), pp. 109-113.
Ghemawat, P. (2007). Redefi ning Global Strategy: Crossing Borders in a World Where Diff erences Still
Matter. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
30 Part I. Conceptual and Methodological Issues
Giddens, A. (2007). Europe in the Global Age, Polity Press. Cambridge – Malden.
Green-Cowles, M., Caporaso, J., Risse, T. (Eds.) (2000). Transforming Europe: Europeanization and
Domestic Change. Ithaca – London: Cornell University Press.
Haas, E.B. (1958). e Uniting of Europe. Political, Social and Economic Forces, 1950–1957. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Harris, Ph., & McDonald, F. (2004). European Business & Marketing. 2nd ed., SAGE Publications, London
– ousand Oaks – New Delhi.
Holzhacker, R., & Haverland, M. (2006). Introduction: Cooperation and Integration among Europeanized
States. In: R. Holzhacker & M. Haverland (Eds.). European Research Reloaded: Cooperation and
Integration among Europeanized States. Dordrecht: Springer.
Holzinger, K., Schimmelfennig, F., 2012, Diff erentiated Integration in the European Union: Many Concepts,
Sparse eory, Few Data, Journal of European Policy, 19(2), pp. 292-305.
Howell, K.E. (2004). Developing Conceptualisations of Europeanisation: A Study of Financial Services.
Politics, 24(1), pp. 20-25.
Howell, K.E. (2005). Europeanisation, Policy Transfer, Convergence and Lesson-Drawing: Case Studies
of UK and German Financial Services Regulation. Journal of Banking Regulation, 6(4), pp. 379-392.
Howell, K.E., 2002, Developing Conceptualizations of Europeanization and European Integration: Mixing
Methodologies, Paper presented at ESRC Seminar, Sheffi eld – November 29, 2002, p. 19; <http://aei.
pitt.edu/1720/1/Howell.pdf> (accessed on: 24.03.2012).
Kohler-Koch, B. (1996). Catching up with Change: e Transformation of Governance in the European
Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 3(3), pp. 359-380.
Kotler, Ph., Caslione, J.A., 2009, Chaotics. e Business of Managing and Marketing in the Age of Turbulence,
AMACOM, New York.
Ladrech, R. (1999). Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: e Case of France. Journal of
Common Market Studies, 32(1), pp. 69-87.
Lawton, T. (1999). Governing the Skies: Conditions for the Europeanisation of Airline Policy. Journal of
Public Policy, 19(1), pp. 91-112.
Lindberg, L.L. et al., (Ed.) (1971). Regional Integration. eory and Research. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Łobos, K. (2008). Organizacja sieciowa (pp. 195-196). In: Krupski, R., (Ed.), Elastyczność organizacji,
Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu.
Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist
Approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), pp. 507-508.
Moravcsik, A. (1994). Why the European Community Strengthens the State: Domestic Politics and
International Cooperation. “Working Papers” No. 52, Centre For European Studies – Harvard
University, Cambridge.
Nowak, B., & Riedel, R. (2010). Europeizacja – teorie, mechanizmy, agenda badawcza (Chapter 3), In:
B.Nowak & R.Riedel (Eds.). Polska i Europa Środkowa. Demokratyzacja. Konsolidacja. Europeizacja.
Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie.
Olsen, J.P. (2002). e Many Faces of Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 2002, 40(5).
Peng, M.W. (2009). Global Strategy, 2nd ed., Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Radaelli, C.M. (1997). How does Europeanization Produce Policy Change? Corporate Tax Policy in Italy
and the UK. Comparative Political Studies, 30(5), pp. 553-575.
Radaelli, C.M. (2000). Whither Europeanization? Concept Stretching and Substantive Change. European
Integration online Papers, 4(8), <http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-008a.htm>, released 17.04.2000.
Radaelli, C.M. (2006). Europeanisation: Solution or Problem?. In: M.Cini & A. Bourne (Eds.). Palgrave
Advances in European Union Studies. Houndmills – New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Risse, T.,Cowles, M.G.,& Caporaso, J.A. (2000). Europeanization and Domestic Change: Introduction. In:
M.G.Cowles, J.A.Caporaso, T.Risse (Eds.), Europeanization and Domestic Political Change. Ithaca
– New York NY: Cornell University Press.
Chapter 1. Europeanisation: Its De nition, Research Approaches and Dimensions 31
Sandoholtz, W. (1996). Membership Matters: Limits of the Functional Approach to European Institutions.
Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(3).
Wach, K. (2015). Conceptualizing Europeanization: eoretical Approaches and Research Designs (Chapter
1). In: P. Stanek & K. Wach (Eds.). Europeanization Processes from the Mesoeconomic Perspective:
Industries and Policies. Cracow: Cracow University of Economics, pp.11-23.
Wach, K. (2016). Europeanization of European Businesses: Economies of Scope and Managerial
Implications. Horyzonty Polityki, 7(19).
Wach,K. (2014a). Europeanization of Firms as eir International Growth within the European Union:
e Empirical Investigation into the Internationalisation Level among Polish Firms (Chapter 1) In:
B.Knežević & K. Wach (Eds.). International Business from the Central European Perspective (pp.
3-14). Zagreb: University of Zagreb.
Wach, K. (2014b). Internationalisation and Globalisation as the Wider Context of Europeanization
Processes from the Macro- and Microeconomic Perspective. Horyzonty Polityki, 5(10), pp. 11-30.
Wallance, H. (2000). Europeanization and Globalization: Complementary or Contradictory Trends. New
Political Economy, 5(3), pp. 369-382.
WTO (2011). International Trade Statistics 2011. Geneva: World Trade Organization.
