Panel 3. Public Policy

In order to fully understand the possible effects of Europeanization in Central European member and would-be member countries one has to take into consideration at least four macro-dynamic pillars, including not just EU single market and EMU, but also regulatory competition in Europe and the process of enlargement. The third pillar means that Europeanization is not simply the product of widening in the array of policies performed in Brussels. It also includes market-driven process, including various forms of regulatory competition between countries, showing that the adjustment of national public policies is not just to fit to EU standards but as well to market dynamic forced by globalization processes. The fourth pillar shows that EU was trying to export the acquis communautaire.

But what was left for national governments in policy-making process? In his famous book on political system of the EU Simon Hix suggests that supranational level in Brussels sets over 80 per cent of the legislations governing economic matters in member states. Many studies call into question such an estimate, decreasing the real impact of EU level on national legislation to more moderate levels, but nevertheless we are faced with the fact that supranational level became dependable prerequisite for understanding policy-making in member and would-be member countries.

In trying to understand the possible impact of EU policy-making on national administrative structures and public policy regimes it is very helpful to connect patterns of governance with particular types of policies. One of the early efforts to use such an approach was made by the German political scientist Christoph Knill who explored the Europeanization of national administrations through patterns of institutional change and persistence. Connecting modes of governance and types of policies he concluded that there are three possible outcomes of Europeanization, ranging from strict compliance with EU institutional requirements, through changes in domestic opportunity structures, aimed at excluding certain options as national policy choices (covering numerous examples of negative integration, e.g. market-making rules), to changes in domestic beliefs and expectations, as a third and weakest form of European policies’ impact. Last form opens the space for the various kinds of policy transfers from other countries, increasing the probability for policy convergence between EU member states.

(Zdravko Petak, Ph.D.)