The Many Faces of Europeanization : JCMS 2002 Volume 40. Number 5. Pp. 921-52

JCMS 2002 Volume 40. Number 5. pp.
921–52
The Many Faces of Europeanization*
JOHAN P. OLSEN
Arena, University of Oslo
Abstract
Is ‘Europeanization’ as disappointing a term as it is fashionable? Should it be aban-
doned, or is it useful for understanding European transformations? Five uses are
discussed and it is argued that research need not be hampered by competing defini-
tions as long as their meaning, the phenomena in focus, the simplifying assumption
used, the models of change and the theoretical challenges involved, are clarified and
kept separate. The research challenge is one of model building, not one of inventing
definitions. While it is premature to abandon the term, its usefulness may be more
limited than its widespread use could indicate. Europeanization may be less useful as
an explanatory concept than as an attention-directing device and a starting point for
further exploration.
Introduction: A Fashionable Term, but is it Useful?

‘Europeanization’ is a fashionable but contested concept. Measured by the
number of titles using the term, research on Europeanization is an academic
growth industry. Yet, the term is applied in a number of ways to describe a
variety of phenomena and processes of change. No shared definition has
emerged and definitions are often delimited to a specific article or book chap-
ter (Börzel, 1999, p. 574; Bulmer and Burch, 2001, p. 75; Checkel, 2001, p.
180). Because ‘Europeanization’ has no single precise or stable meaning, it
has been argued that the term is so unwieldy that it is futile to use it as an
organizing concept (Kassim, 2000, p. 238).
* Warm thanks to Ulf I. Sverdrup for his co-operation during the first part of this project and to Svein S.
Andersen, Peggy S. Brønn, Simon Bulmer, James Caporaso, Jeffrey T. Checkel, Dag Harald Claes, Jon
Erik Dølvik, Morten Egeberg, Beate Kohler-Koch, Ragnar Lie, James G. March, Gary Marks, John
Peterson, Claudio Radaelli, Helene Sjursen, Trygve Ugland, Helen Wallace, Wolfgang Wessels and two
anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
922 JOHAN P. OLSEN
Still, it may be premature to abandon the term. This is so because most

studies are of recent origin and because there have been few systematic at-
tempts to map and compare different uses.1 Efforts to model the dynamics of
‘Europeanization’ are scarce and the empirical evidence uneven and often
contested. Therefore, rather than rejecting the term outright, I make an at-
tempt to create a little more order in a disorderly field of research. The issue
raised is not what Europeanization ‘really is’, but whether and how the term
can be useful for understanding the dynamics of the evolving European pol-
ity. That is, how it eventually may help us give better accounts of the emer-
gence, development and impacts of a European, institutionally-ordered sys-
tem of governance.
The current debate over ‘the future of Europe’ is to a large extent about
how Europe should be governed, how the basic institutions of governance
should be organized and how authority and power should be distributed, ex-
ercised and controlled. A working assumption of this article is that the trans-
formation of the European political order may be fruitfully studied as changes
in and among key institutions.2 Furthermore, it is assumed that Europeaniza-
tion is not a unique process and a sui generis phenomenon. Rather, Europe-
anization is conceptualized in a way that makes it (in principle) possible to
compare European dynamics with the dynamics of other systems of govern-
ance. Radical and durable changes in the constitutive characteristics and ba-
sic principles of the political organization of Europe are seen as important
examples of how systems of governance originate and how they are main-
tained and change.
Then, with a focus on institutional dynamics and a kind of political order
emerging in Europe, and with the primary aim of suggesting a way of think-
ing about such dynamics, I proceed by, first, separating different phenomena
called ‘Europeanization’; that is, what is changing.3 Then I suggest some proc-
esses of institutional change that may be helpful for understanding how Euro-
peanization takes place. Furthermore, an institutional perspective is used in
1 Search in various databases revealed few occurrences of the term prior to the 1980s. Since then
‘Europeanization’ has become increasingly popular, and from the end of the 1990s the term has been
widely used.
2 A focus on institutions does not imply a lack of interest in how studies of policy-making and
implementation, and political identities may help us understand Europeanization. Limited space, time,
energy and competence are the reasons for not giving these aspects the attention they deserve in this article.
For the same reasons and with the same regrets, the sub-national level and variations across European sub-
regions (Morlino, 2000; Goetz, 2002), are not dealt with. In general, the aspiration is not to take stock of
the literature on Europeanization (for a state-of-the-art article, see Bulmer and Lequesne, 2001).
3 At the current stage of Europeanization studies it may be useful to keep definitions parsimonious. That
is, we should not read too much into definitions. For instance, we should not define Europeanization as
an ‘incremental process’ (Ladrech, 1994, yet in Ladrech 2001 this element of the definition is left out). In
this article it is assumed that the exact nature of the processes of change and their end results should be
determined by empirical studies rather than by definition.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

THE MANY FACES OF EUROPEANIZATION 923
an attempt to approach the why-question and to suggest some research chal-

lenges. Connecting the different phenomena called Europeanization to the
different mechanisms by which Europeanization is brought about is a major
challenge for those aspiring to theorize European institutional dynamics. I
suggest some small steps in that direction.
The argument is that different conceptions of Europeanization comple-
ment, rather than exclude, each other. They refer to different, but related,
phenomena. It is also argued that the dynamics of Europeanization can be
understood in terms of a limited set of ordinary processes of change, well
known from other institutionalized systems of governance (March, 1981).
The European case also illustrates how mundane processes can produce an
extraordinary outcome.
One conclusion is that while it may be premature to abandon the term
Europeanization, its usefulness may be somewhat more limited than its wide-
spread use could indicate. Another conclusion is that the empirical complex-
ity and conceptual confusion should lead not to despair, but to renewed ef-
forts to model the dynamics of European change. An immediate challenge is
to develop partial, middle-range theoretical approaches that emphasize do-
mains of application or scope conditions, and that are empirically testable. A
long-term challenge is to provide a better understanding of how different proc-
esses of change interact and make institutions co-evolve through mutual ad-
aptation.
I. Europeanization: What, How, Why?

A first step towards understanding Europeanization is to separate the differ-
ent phenomena referred to by the term, that is, what is changing. I distinguish
between five possible uses:
Changes in external boundaries: This involves the territorial reach of a
system of governance and the degree to which Europe as a continent becomes
a single political space. For example, Europeanization is taking place as the
European Union expands through enlargement.
Developing institutions at the European level: This signifies centre-building
with a collective action capacity, providing some degree of co-ordination and
coherence. Formal-legal institutions of governance and a normative order based
on overarching constitutive principles, structures and practices both facilitate
and constrain the ability to make and enforce binding decisions and to sanc-
tion non-compliance.
Central penetration of national systems of governance: Europeanization
here involves the division of responsibilities and powers between different

924 JOHAN P. OLSEN
levels of governance. All multilevel systems of governance need to work out

a balance between unity and diversity, central co-ordination and local au-
tonomy. Europeanization, then, implies adapting national and sub-national
systems of governance to a European political centre and European-wide
norms.
Exporting forms of political organization: Europeanization as exporting
forms of political organization and governance that are typical and distinct
for Europe beyond the European territory, focuses on relations with non-Eu-
ropean actors and institutions and how Europe finds a place in a larger world
order. Europeanization signifies a more positive export/import balance as non-
European countries import more from Europe than vice versa and European
solutions exert more influence in international fora.
A political unification project: The degree to which Europe is becoming a
more unified and stronger political entity is related both to territorial space,
centre-building, domestic adaptation, and how European developments im-
pact and are impacted by systems of governance and events outside the Euro-
pean continent. A complication is that there is not necessarily a positive cor-
relation between the four types of Europeanization mentioned above, and
between each of them and a politically stronger Europe.
The next step, then, is to suggest a possible way of understanding institu-

tional change and continuity in the current European context. Here, institu-
tional change is seen as depending on a limited number of processes that are
ordinary and complementary and producing a variety of outcomes under shift-
ing circumstances (March, 1981). Political institutions and the agents embed-
ded within them respond in routine ways to changing opportunities and chal-
lenges. For example, change may be a result of rule-following and the appli-
cation of standard operating procedures to appropriate situations. It may be
an outcome of problem-solving and calculating expected consequences, or of
conflict resolution and confrontations. Change may also be produced through
experiential learning or competitive selection, contact and diffusion, or turnover
and regeneration.4
An account of how Europeanization takes place then requires an under-
standing of the structure and dynamics of each change process. For analytical
purposes models can be kept separate. In the real world, however, there will
be complex mixes of processes. While one mechanism may fit a particular
4 The discussion of models of change is highly influenced by March (1981); Lave and March (1975); and
March (1994), as well as more than 30 years of conversations with James G. March. As correctly suggested
by one anonymous reviewer, the list is not exhaustive. I have limited the discussion to some models that
consistently have turned out to be useful in studies of the dynamics of formal organizations and political
institutions. An example of a model that could have been added is change through turnover and
regeneration, illustrated by, e.g., Cram’s concept of ‘banal Europeanization’ (Cram, 2001).
phenomenon or situation better than others, there is no reason to expect a

one-to-one relationship between a phenomenon and a mechanism of change.
Still, for each of the five phenomena called Europeanization above, I sug-
gest – in hypothetical form – one or two processes that may be fruitful as an
analytical starting point, before attending to some complications attached to
using them. For example, changes in territorial reach and Europeanization as
enlargement is interpreted as rule application. The development of institu-
tions of governance at the European level is understood as purposeful deci-
sion-making. Changes in domestic systems of governance are examined within
the framework of two basic processes of adaptation: experiential learning and
competitive selection. Furthermore, Europeanization as export of European
models is interpreted as a process of diffusion. Finally, it is suggested that
Europeanization as political unification involves institutional mutual adapta-
tion. A multitude of institutions and actors co-evolve as they adapt to each
other. They change the organizational setting for each other’s adaptation as
they find a place in the changing political world order.
Identifying processes and mechanisms useful for understanding Europe-
anization is a step towards identifying conditions that make each frame of
interpretation more or less relevant. This article has modest aspirations when
it comes to exploring why various processes of change may be useful. How-
ever, the institutional perspective used here highlights the significance of ex-
isting structures, histories and dynamics for understanding political transfor-
mations.5 Institutions are relatively stable elements of political life. Within
the Westphalian political order, for example, territoriality and peoplehood
have for quite some time been two basic principles of political organization,
group formation and identification in Europe (Borneman and Fowler, 1997).
Concepts like ‘historical inefficiency’ and ‘path dependence’ also suggest that
established institutions do not always adapt quickly to changes in human pur-
pose and external conditions (March and Olsen, 1989; North, 1990). Yet, an
institutional perspective does not imply stasis. Enduring institutions can be
remarkably adaptive, responding to volatile environments routinely, though
not always optimally (March, 1981).
Major change in the relations between key institutions is likely both to
reflect and affect power relations, in Europe as well as globally. Post-war
European co-operation was initiated by a devastating war and major Euro-
pean powers lost their world hegemony. Now, Europe is in a period of explo-
5 An institution is viewed as a relatively stable collection of practices and rules defining appropriate
behaviour for specific groups of actors in specific situations. Such rules are embedded in structures of
meaning and schemes of interpretation, as well as resources and the principles of their allocation (March
and Olsen, 1998, p. 948). Here it is not possible to discuss alternative institutional approaches to European
dynamics (Schneider and Aspinwall, 2001; Stone Sweet et al., 2001).
926 JOHAN P. OLSEN
ration and innovation. Talk of Europeanization, like talk of Americanization

(Jacoby, 2001), is likely to occur when there are possible shifts in relations of
dominance. That is, when there is a willingness and possibly an ability to
challenge an established hegemony and win back a more central role at the
global scene. This suggests that the consensus- and efficiency-seeking frame
often found in EU documents has to be supplemented by an interest in the
power aspect of European transformations. However, attention to power also
includes attention to the limitation of purposive, arbitrary intervention in the
existing order. In complex and dynamic contexts like the European one, pur-
poseful actors influence the processes and structures within which change
takes place. Yet, no single group of decision-makers has the insight, authority
and power to design and reform institutions at will and achieve pre-specified
objectives.
I am interested in how existing institutional arrangements impact on two
key dimensions of institutional change (March and Olsen, 1995; Olsen, 1997a,
2001). First are changes in political organization: the development of an or-
ganizational and financial capacity for common action and governance through
processes of reorganization and redirecting of resources. Second are changes
in structures of meaning and people’s minds. That is, focus is on the develop-
ment and redefinition of political ideas – common visions and purposes, codes
of meaning, causal beliefs and worldviews – that give direction and meaning
to capabilities and capacities.
II. The Changing Boundary of ‘Europe’

A discussion of the ways in which European space may be politically organ-
ized and governed presupposes that Europe as a geographical concept, the
external boundary of Europe as a space or territory, can be delimited and
defined (Jönsson et al., 2000, p. 7). In the literature, however, ‘Europe’ is
used in a variety of ways. Recently it has become common to use ‘Europe’
with reference to the European Union and its Member States.6
Certainly, European transformations are not limited to the EU and its
Member States or to western Europe. Cross-border relations have been, and
still are, managed through a variety of transnational regimes and institutions
besides the EU (Wallace, 2000). There are many examples of institution-build-
ing at the European level. Furthermore, there has also been an increase in
non-territorial forms of political organization, and the meaning and impor-
6 Older debates focused on the exact dividing line between Europe and Asia and raised questions like
whether Britain ‘is European?’ (Garton Ash, 2001). The two issues are different. The first is a question
of territory and space. The latter concerns (as Helen Wallace has pointed out) the empirical question of
whether the British are tied into mainstream continental European ways of thinking and behaving as
distinct from an insular, trans-Atlantic or international orientation.
tance of geographical space has changed with the growth of functional net-
works with no centre of final authority and power (Stone Sweet and Sandholtz,
1998; Kohler-Koch and Eising, 1999). Therefore, an adequate understanding
of the ongoing transformations requires attention to other European trans-
national institutions, regimes and organizations as well as non-Member States.
Still, the European Union has been most successful in terms of institutional-
izing a system of governance that includes a large, and increasing, part of the
continent. The EU is currently the core political project in Europe and the
example most often analysed in the literature. The Union will also be the
main frame of reference for this article.
For the European Union and its forerunners, enlargement has been a re-
current process. The Union has turned out to be attractive for most European
states and the list of applicant countries is long. How, then, can we account
for the dynamics of expansion? More specifically, why have the Member
States accepted new members (Schimmelfennig, 2001; Sedelmeier, 2001;
Sjursen, 2001b)?
Consider rule-following. Here, change is normatively driven. Action is
obligatory, derived through a process of the interpretation of an identity, codes
of conduct and the obligations and rights flowing from them in different situ-
ations (March and Olsen, 1989). Change may be seen as quasi-mechanical,
that is, as following from the routine application of stable criteria for entry
and the execution of standard operating procedures to pre-specified situa-
tions. If an applicant country meets the criteria of membership, it is admitted.
If not, then the door is closed. In less automatic situations the underlying
process may be one of arguing and persuading. Actors appeal to a shared
collective identity and its implications. They evoke common standards of truth
and morals, and change follows as normative or factual beliefs change.
Part of the research challenge is to account for why some identities and
obligations are activated and others are not. For example, criteria of access to
the EU may be liberal-democratic, implying that the Union will admit coun-
tries that reliably adhere to some universal and impartial criteria in their do-
mestic and international conduct (Schimmelfennig, 2001). Criteria may be
institution-specific and related to the principles on which an institution is
founded, such as the Copenhagen declaration of 1993. Or they may take the
form of a moral imperative based on a general sense of ‘kinship-based’ duty,
that is, belonging to a specific political community (Sjursen, 2001b). This
way of reasoning is illustrated when actors argue that there is an historic op-
portunity to ‘reunify Europe’ after decades of artificial separation (Notre Eu-
rope, 2001). Furthermore, interpretations of obligations may also be history-
specific. For example, Sedelmeier argues that, during the cold war, EU policy-
makers constructed a specific role which implied a responsibility for the EU
928 JOHAN P. OLSEN
towards the central and eastern European countries (the CEECs). Such com-
mitments were unevenly distributed across policy-makers, yet they had im-
portant impacts on the enlargement process (Sedelmeier, 2001).
It is commonplace to observe that the EU agreed to enlargement with no
precise calculation of the consequences, including the costs and changes re-
quired for Member States. There was no guarantee that the benefits for each
Member State would outweigh their costs. In brief, enlargement cannot be
seen purely as the result of a strategic choice where Member States are maxi-
mizing their expected utility. However, it is also commonplace to observe
that participants in the enlargement process are concerned with costs and ben-
efits, and that they bargain in the defence of self-interest and economic and
security gains.
What, then, are the mechanisms through which identities and norms have
an impact? Do actors use identities and norms genuinely or instrumentally?
Schimmelfennig (2001) argues primarily within a logic of self-interested cal-
culation rather than a logic of appropriateness. The enlargement process is
characterized by strategic use of norm-based arguments and appeals to demo-
cratic identities and values. Member States have been rhetorically entrapped
and have to support enlargement in order to save their reputation as Commu-
nity members. Strategic behaviour is constrained by the constitutive ideas of
the Community and the actors’ prior identification with the Union. In com-
parison, Sedelmeier (2001, p. 184) is more open to whether identities and
norms are used genuinely or instrumentally. He observes that there are simul-
taneous processes of enactment and definition of the EU’s identity. Finally,
Sjursen emphasizes the genuine role of internalized norms. Norms constitute
the identity of actors and do not only regulate their behaviour. Decisions are
made as actors reason together and assess the moral validity of arguments
(Sjursen, 2001b).
Many EU documents portray enlargement as consistent with liberal-demo-
cratic principles and Community values as well as the interests of existing
members and applicant countries (Commission, 2001b). Scholars aspiring to
theorize about Europeanization cannot assume such harmony. It is important
to understand the relations and possible tensions between a logic of appropri-
ateness and norm-driven behaviour and a logic of calculation and expected
utility under varying circumstances. Actors often follow rules. Yet they are
also often aware of the consequences of rule-driven behaviour. And some-
times they may not be willing to accept the consequences of following rules.
In some situations one identity and norm-set may be dominant and provide
clear normative imperatives. In other situations there may be many compet-
ing identities, giving vague guides for action. Likewise, interests and means-
end understandings may be either clear or obscure. One possibility is that a
clear logic of action will dominate a less clear logic. Another alternative is
that learning over time will produce rules and norm-driven action, while highly
unfavourable consequences will make existing rules suspect and activate a
logic of calculation (March and Olsen, 1998). A third possibility is that differ-
ent logics are relevant for different issues. For example, enlargement may be
decided through application of basic norms, while the distribution of the costs
of enlargement may be decided through self-interested calculation and bar-
gaining.
III. Developing European-Level Institutions

Some scholars portray Europeanization as the institutionalization at the Eu-
ropean level of a distinct system of governance with common institutions and
the authority to make, implement and enforce European-wide binding poli-
cies. This view is illustrated by Risse et al., who define Europeanization as:
the emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures
of governance, that is, of political, legal, and social institutions associated
with the problem solving that formalize interactions among the actors, and
of policy networks specializing in the creation of authoritative European
rules. (Risse et al., 2001, p. 3)
Europeanization here includes both the strengthening of an organizational
capacity for collective action and the development of common ideas, such as
new norms and collective understandings regarding citizenship and member-
ship (Checkel, 2001, p. 180).7
A possible frame for understanding the dynamics and outcomes of Euro-
pean-level institutional development is purposeful choice. Within this frame,
which is used by intergovernmentalists in particular, a group of actors have a
choice between alternative forms of organization and governance. They have
normative criteria that make it possible to discriminate between available al-
ternatives and their outcomes. They choose the one that, according to its in-
herent properties or expected effects, is assessed as being most valuable. In-
stitutional developments, then, are seen as reflecting the will, power and un-
derstanding of identifiable actors. The research challenge is to identify the
actors, and the motivations and forces that determine their choices.
In a problem-solving mode, objectives are shared and institutional change
is the outcome of voluntary agreements among the relevant actors. The chal-
lenge for institutional architects is to discover or design forms of organization
and governance that make all participants come out better than they could do
7 James Caporaso has reminded me that Europeanization was defined as institution-building at the
European level, yet the dependent variable in their study was the impact of European institutions on
domestic institutions (see Cowles et al., 2001).
930 JOHAN P. OLSEN
on their own. For instance, the European Union is assumed to be involved in

a continuous search for ‘the right formula for building lasting and stable insti-
tutions’ in order to improve the functionality, legitimacy and credibility of the
institutions of governance (Patten, 2001). In this perspective, the participants
first have to agree upon common objectives and substantive political pro-
grammes. Then they have to develop institutional arrangements as organiza-
tional tools for their policies.
In a conflict resolution mode, change reflects the interests and beliefs of
the most powerful actors, as they bargain and build coalitions, based on their
political, military or economic power. There is an explicit focus on the com-
peting conceptions of European unity and forms of political organization.
Likewise, there is a focus on power, that is, how Europeanization reflects and
modifies the ways in which political power is constituted, legitimated, exer-
cised, controlled and redistributed. Like other political orders, the emerging
European order has to cope with tensions between unity and integration and
disunity and disintegration (March and Olsen, 1998). Thus, even when EU
officials emphasize norms of consensus and voluntary co-operation and ar-
gue that ‘power politics have lost their influence’ (Prodi, 2001, p. 3), this
perspective assumes a need to understand the power relations and cleavages
shaping the new order as much as the Westphalian state order in Europe
(Rokkan, 1999).
While there is agreement to a large extent that the Union is ‘an extraordi-
nary achievement in modern world politics’ (Moravcsik, 1999, p. 1), there is
less consensus when it comes to the nature of the Union and the causes of its
development. For instance, the importance of explicit intervention and choice
in the development of European-level institutions has been contested. Inter-
governmentalists emphasize institutional choices made by the governments
of (the major) Member States (Moravcsik, 1999). A competing view is that
systems of supranational governance have their roots in the European-wide
transactions, group-formation and networks of transnational society, while
governments primarily play a reactive role (Stone Sweet and Sandholtz ,1998).
An institutional approach, with an emphasis on ‘historical inefficiency’, fo-
cuses on how the element of willed change is influenced and constrained by
existing institutional arrangements (March and Olsen, 1989; Olsen, 1997a,
b). From this perspective it is expected that the significance and nature of
deliberate choice depends on existing institutional configurations and that the
importance of purposeful choice will change as the degree of institutionaliza-
tion at the European level changes.
One possible source of improved understanding of the scope of purpose-
ful institutional choice in contemporary Europe is to compare different Euro-
pean institution-building efforts, such as the EU, EFTA, Nato, the Nordic
Council and the Council of Europe. Another option is to compare attempts at

institution-building within the EU. The EU has been characterized as a ‘non-
state’ and a ‘non-nation’ (Schmitter, 2000) and as ‘a relatively incoherent
polity in institutional terms’ (Caporaso and Stone Sweet, 2001, p. 228). The
Union’s capacity and legitimacy for institution-building has varied across in-
stitutional spheres such as competition policy, monetary affairs, external and
internal security, culture etc., and the ongoing development from (primarily)
market building to polity-building creates the need to attend to the different
dynamics of various institutional spheres and policy sectors.
Studies of state- and nation-building in Europe (Rokkan, 1999) suggest
four dimensions that are relevant for comparing both institutional spheres
within the EU, and the Union with other European institution-building ef-
forts: (1) regulatory institutions: building a unified administrative and mili-
tary apparatus to control a population, a territory and its external borders,
including the ability to extract resources for common tasks; (2) socializing
institutions: developing, through education and socialization, a territorial iden-
tity and a cultural community with a sense of belonging, emotional attach-
ment and shared codes of meaning; (3) democratic institutions: creating demo-
cratic citizenship, representative institutions, equal rights of political partici-
pation, legitimized opposition, organized parties and fora for public debate
and popular enlightenment; and (4) welfare institutions: developing social
and economic citizenship and rights and a community that accepts the collec-
tive responsibility for securing more equal life chances for citizens through
the means of public service, reallocation of resources and regulation of the
use of private resources.
Comparison of the different dynamics of institutional spheres and policy
sectors is, in particular, required when institution-building is seen as involv-
ing changes in action capabilities and in identities, codes of meaning and
normative criteria giving direction to capabilities. Like other political sys-
tems, the EU makes efforts to justify its institutions, to develop a sense of
belonging and to create emotional identification with the system among citi-
zens. Aspirations of governance, then, include not only changes in behav-
ioural regulation, opportunity and incentive structures, but also the molding
of individuals and changes in mentality, causal and moral beliefs and ways of
thinking.
For example, EU institutions, including the Council, have taken an inter-
est in the democratic and European dimensions of education, hoping to make
young people more conscious of European ideas and of being Europeans
(Beukel, 2001, p. 131). Member States, however, have been reluctant to give
the Union authority to shape the institutional framework for education and
socialization. Control over educational institutions – including changes in
932 JOHAN P. OLSEN
universities (Dineen, 1992; H. Olsen, 1998) and in national history writing

(Geyer, 1989) – is a sensitive issue exactly because it is closely linked to
national and sub-national identities. One implication is that students of Euro-
pean institutional dynamics, for theoretical as well as practical reasons, need
to supplement their interest in decision-making and decision-implementing
institutions, with an increased interest in the dynamics of educational and
socializing institutions at the European level.
IV. Domestic Impacts of European-Level Institutions

The third conception of Europeanization focuses on change in core domestic
institutions of governance and politics, understood as a consequence of the
development of European-level institutions, identities and policies. Today this
is the most common use of the term ‘Europeanization’ and a branch of the
literature that has moved into a ‘second generation’ phase of analysis with an
increasingly coherent intellectual agenda (Goetz, 2002). In ‘first generation’
studies, in particular, European-level development is treated as the explana-
tory factor and changes in the domestic systems of governance as the depend-
ent variable. The research tasks are, then, to account for variations in Euro-
pean impacts and to explain the varying responses and robustness of domes-
tic institutions against pressures at the European level.
The bulk of the empirical literature concerns the effect of the European
Union on the Member States. Most often these studies focus on impacts on
domestic policies and behaviour. Yet, there are also studies of the scope and
mode of change in domestic structures and practices, in resources and in prin-
ciples of legitimating collective understandings and codes of meaning.8
Through what processes and mechanisms do European-level developments
penetrate the domestic level and produce change then?
Two basic frameworks for analysing Europeanization as an adaptive proc-
ess are experiential learning and competitive selection. In experiential learn-
ing institutions change on the basis of experiences with, and interpretations
of, how relevant actors in the environment respond to alternative forms of
domestic organization and governance. Environmental actors may be indif-
ferent to the focal domestic institution or actively promote specific forms.
They may dictate prescriptions or allow considerable discretion and local
autonomy. In all cases forms and actions assessed as successful are more
likely to be repeated and developed. Likewise, unsuccessful forms are more
8 Mény et al. (1996); Hanf and Soetendorp (1998); Börzel and Risse (2000); Maurer et al. (2000); Sverdrup
(2000); Börzel (2001); Andersen and Eliassen (2001, p. 233); Bulmer and Burch (2001); Bulmer and
Lequesne (2001); Cowles et al. (2001); Goetz and Hix (2001); Knill (2001); Ladrech (2001); Radaelli
(2000).

likely to be avoided. We need to understand which experiences actors are

exposed to, how they interpret and assess what has happened and why, and to
what degree they are able to store, retrieve and act upon such information.
In models of competitive selection, environmental imperatives are seen as
driving the change process, and there is a need to understand mechanisms of
variation, selection and retention. Institutions and actors are fixed and their
survival and growth rates depend on their performance, comparative advan-
tages and how well they ‘match’ their changing functional and normative
environments. Only the most efficient institutions survive. The others disap-
pear.
What, then, are the factors that influence patterns of adaptation? Which
European-level institutions and actors matter? Why do some states and insti-
tutions undergo more profound change than others? What determines the re-
sponses, adaptability and robustness of domestic institutions, including their
ability to ignore, buffer, redefine or exploit external European-level pressures?
From an institutional perspective we should not expect processes of expe-
riential learning and competitive selection always to be perfect, making ad-
aptation automatic, continuous and precise. Often adaptation is taking place
in a world not easily understood or controlled. The rate of adaptation may be
inconsistent with the rate of change in the environment to which the institu-
tion is adapting, and there may be no single optimal institutional response to
changes in the environment (March, 1981). The most standard institutional
response to novelty is to find a routine in the existing repertoire of routines
that can be used (March and Olsen, 1989, p. 34). External changes are inter-
preted and responded to through existing institutional frameworks, including
existing causal and normative beliefs about legitimate institutions and the
appropriate distribution, exercise and control of power.
Differentiated responses and patterns of adaptation and institutional ro-
bustness can, in particular, be expected in political settings like the European
one. First, because European institution-building and policy-making are un-
evenly developed across institutional spheres and policy areas, the adaptive
pressures on states and institutions vary. For instance, Jacobson suggests some
hypotheses relevant for the impacts of the EU and other supra-, inter- and
transnational institutions, regimes and organizations. Whether they have an
impact and are complied with depends on many factors: the more precise
their legal foundation; when they are based on hard law rather than soft law;
when the affected parties have been involved in developing the arrangement;
the greater the independence of their secretariat; if the secretariat is single-
headed rather than multiple-headed; and the greater the financial autonomy
of the institution or regime (Jacobson, 2001, p. 20).

934 JOHAN P. OLSEN
Second, differentiated responses are likely because the (west) European

political order is characterized by long, strong and varied institutional histo-
ries, with different trajectories of state- and nation-building, resources and
capabilities (Rokkan, 1999). However, while some domestic actors are proud
of their historic achievements and do their best to protect them, others are
eager to get beyond ‘the burdens of the past’ (Zielonka, 2001). As a result,
extensive penetration of domestic institutions by European developments is
taking place in some spheres, while there are also protected spaces, stubborn
resistance and non-penetration in other spheres (Wallace, 1999, p. 3, 2000, p.
371). One implication is that we have to pay attention to how institutional
spheres are affected differently as well as how they attend to, interpret and
respond to European developments differently and in non-synchronized ways.
Therefore, we also have to attend to how differently Europeanization might
impact on the relationships and balance between the major institutional spheres
of the nation-state (Olsen, 1996).
In spite of a considerable number of empirical studies, there is limited
agreement about the degree to which Europeanization as the development of
institutions at the European level creates Europeanization in the meaning of
changing domestic institutions. For instance, a veteran student of European
integration asks: ‘Why is it that we are so ill-equipped to make compelling
generalizations about how the European arena, as constituted by the Euro-
pean Union (EU), impacts on the Member States in terms of the politics of the
countries? … . Why are our efforts to compare countries’ experiences of EU
membership so feeble’? (Wallace, 1999, p. 1).
European-level arrangements have been seen as strengthening the territo-
rial state and the state-based order and as creating more national government
rather than less (Milward, 1992; Metcalfe, 1994; Moravcsik, 1994). They
have also been seen as affecting negatively the substantive problem-solving
capacity of the state and reducing the role of democratic politics in society
(Scharpf, 1999). Furthermore, they have been seen as transforming, rather
than strengthening or weakening the territorial state or the state system
(Wessels, 1996; Kohler-Koch, 1999; Kohler-Koch and Eising, 1999; Hooghe
and Marks, 2001).
Students of government and administrative institutions observe a signifi-
cant and persistent shift of domestic attention, resources and personnel to
European-level institutions and their decision-making cycles. There is also
some convergence in patterns of attention, behaviour and policy. Yet a main
finding (although with many nuances) is that there has been no radical change
in any of the national systems and no significant convergence towards a com-
mon institutional model homogenizing the domestic structures of the Euro-

pean states.9 No new harmonized and unified model of dealing with Union
matters has emerged. EU arrangements are compatible with the maintenance
of distinct national institutional arrangements and there is even reconfirma-
tion and restoration of established national structures and practices. In sum,
structural diversity persists among the core domestic structures of govern-
ance in spite of increasing contact and competition between national models.
Established national patterns are resistant to, but also flexible enough to cope
with, changes at the European level.10
While European developments have been presented as an important rea-
son for administrative reforms (Raadschelders and Toonen, 1992, p. 16), and
as creating a need for improved domestic co-ordination (Kassim, 2000, p.
236), governments and administrative systems have differentially adapted to
European pressures on their own terms. That is, adaptation has reflected insti-
tutional resources and traditions, the pre-existing balance of domestic institu-
tional structures, and also ‘the broader matrices of values which define the
nature of appropriate political forms in the case of each national polity’
(Harmsen, 1999, p. 81).11 Likewise, a study of ten smaller west European
states – both Member and non-Member States – concluded that adaptations to
the EU were influenced by existing institutional arrangements and traditions
(Hanf and Soetendorp, 1998).
Europeanization as domestic impacts is not limited to structural and policy
changes. European values and policy paradigms are also to some (varying)
degree internalized at the domestic level, shaping discourses and identities
(Dyson, 2000 a ,b; Checkel, 2001). Europeanization of foreign policy has
produced shared norms and rules that are gradually accumulated, rather than
being a process where interests have been fixed (Sjursen, 2001a, pp. 199–
200). Likewise, common concepts of appropriate fiscal behaviour, taxation
and ‘sound’ money and finance have developed at the elite level (Radaelli,
1997; Dyson, 2000a; Sbragia, 2001, p. 80).
9 Kaelble (1989), studying primarily social institutions, concluded that there had been considerable
convergence in Europe in the period 1880–1980. Gary Marks (personal communication) holds that, at the
level of subnational regionalization, there has been both convergence and divergence. Where there has
been change over the past several decades, it has been towards strengthening regions. Yet the extent of
variation in the strength of regions is still at least as great as in 1950 or 1960. Countries have similar slopes,
but the slopes tend to diverge over time. As a result, the direction of change is convergent, but the outcome
is greater divergence.
10 Page and Wouters (1995); Wessels and Rometsch (1996); Christensen (1996); Egeberg and Trondal
(1999); Harmsen (1999); Bomberg and Peterson (2000); Kassim et al. (2000); Maurer et al. (2000);
Radaelli (2000); Sverdrup (2000); Bulmer and Burch (2001); Cowles and Risse (2001); Goetz (2001);
Jacobsson et al. (2001); Ladrech (2001); Trondal (2001); Wessels et al. (2001); Ugland (2002).
11 Harmsen observed that the Netherlands was more occupied with the perceived threat to the autonomy
of civil society, and the balance between state and society, than the sovereignty of the state. In contrast,
France was more interested in buffering the state against EU norms (Harmsen, 1999, p. 105; see also
Kassim et al., 2000; Wallace, 2000, pp. 369–70).
936 JOHAN P. OLSEN
Simultaneously, among ordinary citizens, national identities are reaffirmed

and there has been a revival of nationalism and ethnic-based identities that
possibly represents a major source of potential resistance to Europeanization
(Schlesinger, 1993; Hooghe et al., 1999). While there are relatively few stud-
ies of how Europeanization contributes to molding public opinion and chang-
ing the role and significance of civil society in such processes (Venturelli,
1993; Schlesinger, 1992, 1993), new boundaries of solidarity have been drawn
within and among organized interests (Dølvik, 1997; Macey, 1998). Even
churches and spiritual associations have come under pressure to adapt their
structures and state–church relations to the changing European context. They
have been asked to ‘help to interpret and give meaning to the process of Euro-
pean unification’ and their responses have been affected by different privi-
leges and national arrangements (Jansen, 2000, pp. 103,105). Likewise, there
have been a limited number of studies of the adaptation of the polity at large,
including changes in domestic politics, political cleavages, voting behaviour,
elections, political parties and party systems. The conclusions of such studies
seem to support rather than contradict studies of governmental and adminis-
trative systems (Mair, 2000; Goetz and Hix, 2001; Ladrech, 2001; Anderson,
2002).
In sum, European-level developments do not dictate specific forms of in-
stitutional adaptation but leave considerable discretion to domestic actors and
institutions. There are significant impacts, yet the actual ability of the Euro-
pean level to penetrate domestic institutions is not perfect, universal or con-
stant. Adaptation reflects variations in European pressure as well as domestic
motivations and abilities to adapt. European signals are interpreted and modi-
fied through domestic traditions, institutions, identities and resources in ways
that limit the degree of convergence and homogenization.
As students of European dynamics are beginning to understand better the
conditions for interactions between European and domestic factors, more
nuance in the conclusions can be expected. So far, however, institutional learn-
ing across national borders is limited (Kassim, 2000, p. 242; Maurer et al.,
2000). Competitive selection on the basis of comparative efficiency is a sig-
nificant process in some sectors, like telecommunications (Schneider, 2001,
p. 78; Levi-Faur, 2002). Yet, competitive selection does not in general secure
convergence towards a ‘best practice’ and optimal instititutional forms across
Europe (Harmsen, 1999, p. 84). Goetz concludes that the literature ‘casts
some doubt over the explanatory power of “European integration” as [a] ma-
jor force driving domestic executive change’ (Goetz, 2001, p. 220). He finds
no straightforward connection between adaptive pressure and adaptive reac-
tions and he advises caution in treating European integration as a major inde-

pendent source of change. European-level changes are just one among sev-
eral drivers of domestic change.
Furthermore, a development towards, for instance, autonomous central
banks (Cowles and Risse, 2001, pp. 232–3) and a shared concept of ‘appro-
priate fiscal behavior’ (Sbragia, 2001, p. 80) are not solely European phe-
nomena. Typically, transnational professions such as economists spread pre-
dominant ideas globally. Likewise, the high intensity of competitive selec-
tion in the telecommunications sector is to a considerable extent a result of
strong global pressure (Schneider, 2001, p. 78; Levi-Faur, 2002). Changes in
educational policy have been understood in terms of changes in (economic)
factors outside the range of the EU (Beukel, 2001, p. 139). There are interest-
ing attempts to separate effects of Europeanization and globalization (Verdier
and Breen, 2001). Still, a major challenge is to trace changes at the domestic
level back to European-level institutions, policies or events. In practice it has
turned out to be difficult to isolate European effects (Radaelli, 1997, p. 572,
2000; Bulmer and Burch, 2001, p. 76; Levi-Faur, 2002) and to disentangle
‘net-effects’ of European arrangements from global, national and sub-national
sources of change.
V. Exporting European Institutions

Inward-looking definitions, that is, Europeanization of the continent itself,
are a twentieth-century phenomenon (Mjøset, 1997). Historically, Europe-
anization has been understood as the spread of forms of life and production,
habits of drinking and eating, religion, language, and political principles, in-
stitutions and identities typical of Europe and unknown in the rest of the world
beyond European territory (Kohn, 1937; Weber, 1947, pp. 208, 215; Mjøset,
1997; Zimmer, 1990). The global extension of the territorial state system is
just one outstanding example of European models of polity and society spread-
ing throughout the globe, making European development a key to understand-
ing the rest of the world (Geyer, 1989, p. 339).
A basic framework for understanding such diffusion processes is borrowed
from epidemology. When studying the spread of a form of political organiza-
tion and governance through a territory and a population, the focus is on ques-
tions such as: what is the pattern of diffusion? How fast, how far, and to
whom does it (first) spread? Does it stick, or fade away and disappear? What
are the political processes through which forms of organization and govern-
ance spread? Why does a form spread? Which factors determine the rate and
pattern of diffusion? In particular, what are the properties of forms that make
them more or less likely to spread? Does it make a difference whether trans-
mission happens through networks of individual contacts or through ‘broad-
938 JOHAN P. OLSEN
casting’ and exposure to organized efforts of arguing, persuasion or indoctri-

nation?
An institutional perspective suggests that diffusion will be affected by the
interaction between outside impulses and internal institutional traditions and
historical experiences. Diffusion processes are unlikely to produce perfect
cloning of the prescriptions offered. What is diffused is likely to be trans-
formed during the process of diffusion (March, 1981; Czarniawska and Sevón,
1996; Olsen and Peters, 1996; Christensen and Lægreid, 2001).
In practice, the spread of European models has sometimes taken the form
of colonialization, coercion and imposition. European institutions have pene-
trated and destroyed the traditions and institutions of other continents. They
have disrupted and undermined the coherence of established polities and so-
cieties and created political counter-mobilization and confrontations. How-
ever, diffusion has also taken the form of imitation and voluntaristic borrow-
ing from a successful civilization. The receivers have copied European ar-
rangements because of their perceived functionality, utility or legitimacy.
Because the major European states have lost their world hegemony, hier-
archical command and coercion are currently less likely to be the most impor-
tant processes for spreading European institutions outside Europe. Diffusion
patterns may depend more on the exposure to and the attractiveness of Euro-
pean forms. Then, the issue is: among the many, competing ideas about ex-
emplary or appropriate political organization and governance available at the
global scene, how distinct and attractive are European forms?
There is scant empirical documentation of external diffusion processes
during the last few decades. Yet the new institutionalism in sociology denies
that there are distinct European models of organization and governance. The
lack of distinction between Europe and the rest of the world, rather than the
uniqueness of European solutions, is emphasized (Meyer, 2001, p. 238).12
The focus is on the diffusion of global prescriptions – templates and stand-
ards of universalistic rationality and validity – spread through a global sys-
tem of cultural communication (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Meyer, 1996;
Andersen, 2001).
The attractiveness of European prescriptions and normative standards has
also been questioned. For instance, Garton Ash argues that the UK looks to
the United States for inspiration. There is a fascination with American solu-
tions and ‘idealized America trumps idealized Europe’ (Garton Ash, 2001, p.
12). Furthermore, the attraction of American enterprise, innovation and flex-
ibility (Dyson, 2000a) is hardly limited to the UK.
12 See, however, Strang (1991). Of course, a successful diffusion of European forms of organization and
governance, such as the territorial state, has, over time, made Europe less unique.

Currently, Europe finds itself in a new period of experimentation and

innovation.The continent is in search of an identity and new political and
social models (Beck et al., 2001). While Europe has limited power, it is still
the world’s major producer of ideology and a normative area that can contrib-
ute good ideas (Therborn, 2001). For instance, the Lisbon process empha-
sized the need to formulate, defend and spread globally a European model of
society, partly through competition between different existing Member State
models. Increasing attention is paid to European identity and to civilizational
differences between Europe and the United States, illustrated by debates over
federalism, the desire to combine improved economic efficiency with social
justice and responsibility, the use of the death penalty, resistance towards
treating language and culture as commodities, new conceptions of security,
environmental issues like the Kyoto agreement, etc. Possibly, new forms of
organization and governance are in the making, producing forms and proc-
esses of change that may inspire regional integration in other parts of the
world (Telò, 2001).
Furthermore, European states are increasingly making attempts to assert
themselves on the international stage through the EU. For instance, one di-
mension of the development of a common foreign and security policy relates
to the status and role of the EU in the international system (Sjursen, 2001a, p.
199). Aspirations include making the Union an influential actor in the devel-
opment of a new international order through the WTO, Nato and the United
Nations, as well as in bilateral negotiations. A goal is to make the Union’s
political power better reflect its economic power.
The power aspect is also observed when the Union is seen as ‘Europe’ and
the focus is on diffusion of institutions, standards and identities within the
continent. Borrowing between European states has a long history (Barker,
1944). Yet in recent enlargement negotiations with the CEECs, phrases like
‘catching up’ with the west, the conditionality of aid and the need to accept
EU standards and forms as part of becoming Member States, indicate status
and power differentials. Yet, it has also been observed that leaders in the former
communist states in eastern and central Europe are improving their ability to
differentiate between those aspects that are useful for their own political pur-
poses and those that are not. Imitation has followed a political logic distinct
from faddish mimicry (Jacoby, 2001).
While coercion is not the main process of change, diffusion of forms of
political organization is unlikely to reflect solely the attractiveness of Euro-
pean templates. Diffusion processes involve the distribution of power and
status. They also take place within a framework of resources and capabilities,
incentives and sanctions. Resources can be used to give voice to ideas and
practices, to make them more visible and more attractive. Forms supported
940 JOHAN P. OLSEN
by the resourceful are ceteris paribus more likely to spread. Therefore, we

have to attend to the resources mobilized to promote European forms in other
parts of the world, as well as the resources available for non-Europeans to
resist unattractive forms. In sum, students of Europeanization as the diffusion
of European forms of organization and governance beyond the region have to
understand the distinctiveness, attractiveness and legitimacy of European
models, as well as the resources backing or opposing their diffusion. The
shifting long-term European export–import balance of forms is one possible
indicator of whether Europe is becoming a more or less important entity in its
interaction with non-Europe.
VI. Political Unification of Europe

The fifth conception defines Europeanization as a political development mak-
ing Europe a more distinct, coherent and strong political entity.13 Sovereign
states, then, are unified into a single political space and system of govern-
ance, a functional whole and a purposeful and resourceful actor. Coherent
structural arrangements provide a strong organizational basis for concerted
action inwards and outwards. The development of a European sphere for pub-
lic will- and opinion formation contributes to common conceptions of legiti-
mate political organization and a shared feeling of belonging, giving direc-
tion to action capabilities. Internal borders and barriers are fading or removed.
External borders and barriers are strengthened. There is a clear discrimina-
tion between members (citizens) and non-members. In sum, a fragmented
European state system is unified as the boundaries of political space are ex-
tended.
Europeanization in the sense of (strong) political unification is not a prac-
tice already brought into existence. As an aspiration, it is partly present in
some reform programmes (Habermas, 1998; Fischer, 2000; Commission,
2001a; Notre Europe, 2001). Europe has, however, a long history of unsuc-
cessful attempts at unification (Heater, 1992) and there are currently compet-
ing ideas about what political organization and system of governance is desir-
able, possible and likely to make Europe a stronger entity.
13 It has been argued that there is no need for ‘Europeanization’ in this meaning because it is synonymous
with ‘integration’ and does not add anything to explaining unification (Radaelli, 2000; Bomberg and
Peterson, 2000; Kohler-Koch, 2000). I disagree. Europeanization here involves enlarging the territory,
developing new institutions of political governance and adapting existing domestic institutions into a
larger coherent order, as well as exporting European models beyond the region. Furthermore, the concept
of integration has problems of its own. Integration among a set of elementary parts may refer to structures
of interdependence, interaction and sociometric connectedness, and meaning and consistency, in terms of
shared normative and causal beliefs, emotional identification and shared political projects (March, 1999,
pp. 134–5). These dimensions are not necessarily strongly correlated, even if they are often assumed to
be so in the literature.

As of now, there are also few agreed indicators of Europeanization as po-

litical unification. A strong Europe does not simply imply maximizing terri-
tory, centre-building, adaptation of national and sub-national systems of gov-
ernance and export of European models. Rather, the institutionalization of
political borders, authority, power and responsibility is a delicate balancing
act. For example, EU enlargement will increase the Union’s territory, popula-
tion and resources. Yet it will also create more heterogeneity and put stronger
demands on the Union’s institutions of governance. A stronger centre and a
single hierarchical control and command system may under some circum-
stances make it possible to act in a more coherent way and play a more sig-
nificant role in global developments. Yet strong adaptational pressure will
also generate protest and resistance from Member States as well as others
disagreeing with common policies. Likewise, vigorous adaptation of domes-
tic systems without adequate respect for local autonomy, diversity and pro-
tection of minorities will provoke conflict and obstruction. The export of Eu-
ropean solutions may indicate success. Yet a successful European develop-
ment will also depend on imports from other parts of the world.
Such a balancing act is unlikely to take the form of a single, typical and
dominant process of change. Rather, a crucial aspect of Europeanization has
been the dissemination of a network mode of governance characterized by
complex interactions between levels and sectors in a multi-level and multi-
centre polity (Kohler-Koch, 1999; Hooghe and Marks, 2001). In order to un-
derstand European dynamics it is therefore likely that we will need a basic
framework allowing several different types of simultaneous processes of
change and a pattern of mutual adaptation among co-evolving institutions.14
The processes of institutional change discussed so far, rule application
and arguing, choice, adaptation through experiential learning or competitive
selection and diffusion, are seen as complementary rather than exclusive. In
varying combinations they are likely to be helpful in understanding contem-
porary ecologies of co-evolving institutions. This complexity may also ex-
plain why students of European transformation have often observed that the
dynamics of change take the form of mutual adaptation among co-evolving
institutions at different levels and sectors of governance; still, they have tended
to ignore the observation in their model-building efforts.
14 Please note that I talk about co-evolving institutions and not institutional co-evolution. The latter
concept, as used in biology and evolutionary economics, opens a theoretical can of worms, i.e. the
relationship between institutional change, development and evolution. Institutional development implies
that change has a direction, that there are consistent and durable changes in political institutions and the
institutional balance (Orren and Skowronek, 2001). Institutional evolution in addition suggests that
change tends to improve the adaptive value of institutions, in terms of performance and survival. Processes
of development and evolution should, however, be documented empirically rather than assumed in models
of European institutional dynamics.
942 JOHAN P. OLSEN
On the one hand, it has been observed that change is not unilateral. Glo-
bal, European, national and sub-national processes interact in intricate ways.
Typically, there is no single dominant and deterministic causal relation. Causal
chains are often indirect, long and complex. Effects are difficult to identify
and disentangle. Interactive processes of feedback, mutual influence and ad-
aptation are producing interpenetration between levels of governance and in-
stitutions (Héritier et al., 1996, p. 1; Rometsch and Wessels, 1996; Kassim,
2000, p. 257; Laffan et al., 2000, pp. 84, 85; Wallace, 2000, p. 370; Bulmer
and Burch, 2001, p. 178; Bulmer and Lequesne, 2001; Ladrech 2001, p. 4).
On the other hand, the observed complexity is often bracketed. For example,
Risse et al. (2001, p. 12) write: ‘although the causality between Europeaniza-
tion and domestic structure runs in both directions, we have chosen to empha-
size the downward causation from Europeanization to domestic structure’.
The dilemma is obvious. A focus on uni-causal relations and the language and
logic of fixed dependent and independent variables, can become a straitjacket
preventing an adequate theoretical and empirical analysis of European dy-
namics of change. However, no coherent empirical research programme is
possible if everything is seen as endogenous and in flux.
Current European developments may illustrate an elementary property of
human beings, that they are capable of producing more complex behaviour
and institutions than they are capable of understanding (Lave and March,
1975, p. 6). A world where many actors are adapting to each other simultane-
ously and therefore changing the context in which other actors are adapting,
is a world that is difficult to predict, understand and control by any single
actor or group of actors. It is difficult both to infer the proper lessons of expe-
riences and to know what action to take (Axelrod and Cohen, 1999, p. 8).
Political leaders facing a situation where institutions evolve and unfold
through an unguided process with weak elements of shared understanding
and control may trust processes of natural selection, for instance through com-
petitive markets. Then the task of prospective leaders is to establish simple
rules of fair competition and to harness complexity by protecting variation,
exploration and innovation. A complementary position is to try to make insti-
tutional change a more guided process by improving the elements of shared
understanding and co-ordination and reducing complexity. Examples would
be institutional actors monitoring each other, exchanging information, intro-
ducing arrangements of consultation before decisions are made, developing
shared statistics and accounts, making explicit efforts to reduce incom-
patibilities and redundancies, and deliberately to develop networks of contact
and interaction, joint projects and common rules and institutions. An increas-
ing institution and regime density at both European and global levels sug-

gests that both competitive markets and reforms aiming at more deliberate
co-ordination are parts of a changing world order.
For students of institutional dynamics, Europeanization as unification
makes it necessary to rethink what are fruitful research strategies. In simple
models of institutional change, action is often assumed to be a response to a
fixed environment, i.e. the environment is not affected by institutional action.
The assumption is convenient, but often inconsistent with institutional reali-
ties (March, 1981). Assuming that institutions create their environments in
part – that they are part of an ecology of interaction, control, co-operation and
competition, with organized units responding to each other – complicates the
model-building task considerably.
One strategy is to design research projects aiming to specify the scope
conditions for specific processes of change, i.e. under what conditions each
process is likely to be most significant for understanding European transfor-
mation. Another research strategy – and an even more challenging one – is to
focus on how institutional transformation may be understood as an ecology
of mutual adaptation and co-evolving institutions, including a (varying) number
of interacting processes of change. Empirically, the latter research strategy
implies studying how non-European, European-level, national and sub-na-
tional institutions and actors may change at the same time and in association
with one another, as they try to find a place within a complex multi-layer and
multi-centred system.
VII. A Model-Building, not Definitional Challenge

Where does all this leave us? Is ‘Europeanization’ generally a disappointing
term to be abandoned, or is it useful for understanding the ongoing transfor-
mation of the European political order? Is it useful to subsume a variety of
phenomena and change mechanisms under one term? Are we in danger of
misunderstanding the process and nature of Europeanization because we mis-
use the term (Wallace, 1999, p. 2)?
Research on European transformations need not be hampered by compet-
ing definitions as long as their meaning, the phenomena in focus, the simpli-
fying assumption behind the definitions, the models of change and the theo-
retical challenges involved, are clarified and kept separate. Europeanization
may, however, turn out to be less useful as an explanatory concept than as an
attention-directing device and a starting point for further exploration. Possi-
bly, Europeanization as political unification will turn out to be of most inter-
est, because this conception combines internal and external aspects of Euro-
pean dynamics and includes the other four meanings. It will certainly be the

944 JOHAN P. OLSEN
most challenging for those wanting to theorize European institutional dynam-

ics.
Students of European transformation disagree when it comes to the im-
portance of change, what the future is likely to bring and how we may best
understand institutional transformations. One reason may be that the Euro-
pean political order has not settled down in a new stable equilibrium. There
has been significant change since the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957.
Yet, Europe is still in a period of transition. The continent is moving towards
a new form of political organization and it is experimenting with the proce-
dures by which the political order itself is to be changed, as illustrated by the
ongoing Convention on the Future of Europe.
How, then, are changes in the European political order to be analysed? In
contrast to those who identify an institutional approach with strong Euro-
pean-level institutions (Puchala, 1999), the approach used in this article pre-
dicts considerable robustness and resilience in the constituent institutions at
the domestic level. Domestic institutional structures, and the values, norms,
interests and power distributions in which they are embedded, are monuments
of historical battles, joint problem-solving and peaceful conflict resolution.
Institutions should not be expected to change easily and quickly except under
extraordinary conditions. Historically, the territorial state has also shown it-
self highly adaptive when facing radical change in its environment. Com-
pared to other forms of political organization it has been successful, for in-
stance, when measured by its survival rate (Weiss, 1998). Now the territorial
state’s adaptive capabilities are again being tested, and the observation of
domestic structural continuity and behavioural change is of interest here.
While conceptual clarity is of great importance also in the European con-
text (Radaelli, 2001), the research challenge is not primarily one of inventing
definitions. Questions of the properties, mechanisms and explanation of Eu-
ropean transformations should not be turned into definitional issues. The chal-
lenge is to model the dynamics of change in ways that make the simplifying
assumptions behind various definitions accessible to empirical tests. The way
ahead lies in integrating perspectives on institutional dynamics, rather than
choosing among them. There is no single grand theory of ‘Europeanization’
that can help us understand how institutions co-evolve through processes of
mutual adaptation. Nor is there a single set of simplifying assumptions about
change, institutions and actors that will capture the complexity of European
transformations. Yet a limited repertoire of (middle-range) models of institu-
tional change that may be helpful in capturing European dynamics exist. Ex-
ploring the scope conditions of each model is a beginning. Understanding
their interaction is the long-term and difficult challenge.

Correspondence:
Johan P. Olsen
Arena, University of Oslo
PO Box 1143, Blindern
N-0317 Oslo, Norway
Tel: (+47) 22 85 76 78 Fax: (+47) 22 85 78 32
email: j.p.olsen@arena.uio.no
References
Andersen, S.S. (ed.) (2001) Institutional Approaches to the European Union. Oslo
Arena Report No. 3/2001.
Andersen, S.S. and Eliassen, K.A. (eds) (2001) Making Policy in Europe (London:
Sage), 2nd edn.
Anderson, J.J. (2002) ‘Europeanization and the Transformation of the Democratic
Polity – 1945–2000’. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vo. 41, No. 5, pp. 793–
822.
Axelrod, R. and Cohen, M.D. (1999) Harnessing Complexity (New York: Free Press).
Barker, E. (1944) The Development of Public Services in Western Europe 1660–1930
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Beck, W., van der Maesen, L.J.G., Thomése, F. and Walker, A. (eds) (2001) Social
Quality: A Vision for Europe (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
Beukel, E. (2001) ‘Educational Policy: Institutionalization and Multi-level Govern-
ance’. In Andersen, S.S. and Eliassen, K.A. (eds), pp. 124–39.
Bomberg, E. and Peterson, J. (2000) ‘Policy Transfer and Europeanization: Passing
the Heineken Test? Belfast: Queen’s Papers on Europeanization No. 2/2000,
available at «http:/www.qub.ac.uk/ies/onlinepapers/poe2.html», accessed 29 April
2002.
Borneman, J. and Fowler, N. (1997) ‘Europeanization’. Annual Review of Anthropol-
ogy, Vol. 26, pp. 487–514.
Börzel, T.A. (1999) ‘Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to
Europeanization in Germany and Spain’. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.
39, No. 4, pp. 573–96.
Börzel, T.A. (2001) The Domestic Impact of Europe: Institutional Adaptation in
Germany and Spain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Börzel, T.A. and Risse, T. (2000) ‘When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and
Domestic Change’. Florence, European University Institute, RSC Document No.
2000/56.
Bulmer, S. and Burch, M. (2001) ‘The “Europeanization” of Central Government’. In
Schneider, G. and Aspinwall, M. (eds), pp. 73–96.
Bulmer, S. and Lequesne, C. (2001) ‘New Perspectives on EU–Member State
Relationship’. Manchester/Paris, Paper for the ECSA Biennial Conference, 31
May–2 June 2001, Madison, Wisconsin.

946 JOHAN P. OLSEN
Caporaso, J.A. and Stone Sweet, A. (2001) ‘Conclusion: Institutional Logics of

European Integration’. In Stone Sweet, A. et al. (eds), pp. 221–36.
Checkel, J.T. (2001) The Europeanization of Citizenship? In Cowles, M.G. et al.
(eds), pp. 180–97.
Christensen, T. (1996) ‘Adapting to Processes of Europeanization. A Study of the
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’. Oslo, Arena Report No. 2/96.
Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (2001) ‘New Public Management. The Effects of
Contractualism and Devolution on Political Control’. Public Management Re-
view, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 73–94.
Commission of the European Communities (2001a) ‘European Governance: A White
Paper’. Brussels: COM (2001) 428.
Commission of the European Communities (2001b) ‘Making a Success of Enlarge-
ment’. Strategy paper and report of the European Commission on the progress
towards accession by each of the candidate countries. Available at «http://
europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2001/strategy_en.pfd» accessed 23 No-
vembr 2001.
Cowles, M.G., Caporaso, J.A. and Risse, T. (eds) (2001) Transforming Europe:
Europeanization and Domestic Change (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Cowles, M.G. and Risse, T. (2001) ‘Transforming Europe: Conclusions’. In Cowles,
M.G. et al. (eds.), pp. 217–61.
Cram, L. (2001) ‘Imagining the Union: A Case of Banal Europeanism’. In Wallace,
H. (ed.), pp. 231–46.
Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G. (eds) (1996) Translating Organizational Change
(Berlin: de Gruyter).
Dineen, D.A. (1992) ‘Europeanization of Irish Universities’. Higher Education, Vol.
24, pp. 391–411.
Dølvik, J.E. (1997) ‘Redrawing Boundaries of Solidarity? ETUC, Social Dialogue
and the Europeanization of Trade Unions in the 1990s’. Oslo, Arena Report No.
5/97.
Dyson, K.( 2000a) ‘Europeanization, Whitehall Culture and the Treasury as Institu-
tional Veto Player: A Constructivist Approach to Economic and Monetary Union’.
Public Administration, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 897–914.
Dyson, K. (2000b) ‘EMU as Europeanization: Convergence, Diversity and Contin-
gency’. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 645–66.
Egeberg, M. and Trondal, J. (1999) ‘Differentiated Integration in Europe: The Case
of EEA Country Norway’. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 37, No.1, pp.
133–42.
Fischer, J. (2000) ‘Vom Staatenverbund zur Föderation – Gedanken über die Finalität
der europäischen Integration’. Berlin, Speech at the Humboldt University in
Berlin, 12 May. Available at «http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/6_archiv/2/r/
r000512b.htm», accessed 17 May 2002. Reprinted in Joerges, C., Mény, Y. and
Weiler, J.H.H. (eds) What Kind of Constitution for What Kind of Polity? Responses
to Joschka Fischer (Florence: European University Institute).
Garton Ash, T. (2001) ‘Is Britain European?’. International Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 1,
pp. 1–13.
Geyer, M. (1989) ‘Historical Fictions of Autonomy and the Europeanization of
National History’. Central European History, Vol. 22, No. 3/4, pp. 316–42.
Goetz, K.H. (2001)‘European Integration and National Executives: A Cause in Search
of an Effect’. In Goetz, K.H. and Hix, S. (eds) Europeanised Politics (London:
Frank Cass), pp. 211–31.
Goetz, K.H. (2002) ‘ Four Worlds of Europeanisation’. Paper prepared for Workshop
on ‘Europeanisation and National Political Institutions’, ECPR Turin 22–7 March
(London: LSE).
Goetz, K.H. and Hix, S. (eds) (2001) Europeanised Politics. European Integration
and National Political Systems (London: Frank Cass).
Habermas, J. (1998) ‘ Does Europe Need a Constitution?’. Response to Dieter Grimm.
In Habermas, J. (Cronin, C. and De Greiff, P. eds) The Inclusion of the Other.
Studies in Political Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 156–61.
Hanf, K. and Soetendorp, B. (1998) ‘Small States and the Europeanization of Public
Policy’. In Hanf, K. and Soetendorp, B. (eds) Adapting to European Integration.
Small States and the European Union (Harlow: Longman), pp. 1–13.
Harmsen, R. (1999) ‘The Europeanization of National Administrations: A Compar-
ative Study of France and the Netherlands’. Governance, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 81–
113.
Heater, D. (1992) The Idea of European Unity (Leicester: Leicester University Press).
Héritier, A., Knill, C. and Mingers, S. in collaboration with Barrett, R. (1996) Ringing
the Changes in Europe. Regulation Competition and Redefinition of the State.
Britain, France, Germany (Berlin: de Gruyter).
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-level Governance and European Integration
(Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield).
Hooghe, L., Marks, G. and Wilson, C. (1999) ‘Party Positions on European Integra-
tion: New Politics versus Left/Right’. Paper presented to the conference ‘Contes-
tation in the European Union’, Center for European Studies, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, 4 April–2 May.
Jacobson, H.K.( 2001) ‘Doing Collaborative Research in International Legal Topics:
An Autobiographical Account’. International Studies Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.
15–23.
Jacobsson, B., Lægreid, P. and Pedersen, O.K. (2001) Europaveje. EU i de nordiske
centralforvaltninger (Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag).
Jacoby, W. (2001) ‘Tutors and Pupils: International Organizations, Central European
Elites, and Western Models’. Governance, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 169–200.
Jansen, T. (2000) ‘Europe and Religions: The Dialogue Between the European
Commission and Churches or Religious Communities’. Social Compass, Vol. 47,
No.1, pp. 103–12.
Jönsson, C., Tägil, S. and Törnqvist, G. (2000) Organizing European Space (London:
Sage).
Kaelble, H. (1989) A Social History of Western Europe 1880–1980 (Dublin: Gill and
Macmillan).
Kassim, H. (2000) ‘Conclusion’. In Kassim, H. et al. (eds), pp. 235–64.

948 JOHAN P. OLSEN
Kassim, H., Peters, B.G. and Wright, V. (eds) (2000) The National Co-ordination of
EU Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Knill, C.(2001) The Europeanisation of National Administrations. Patterns of Insti-
tutional Change and Persistence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Kohler-Koch, B. (1999) ‘The Evolution and Transformation of European Govern-
ance’. In Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R. (eds), pp. 14–35.
Kohler-Koch, B. (2000) ‘Europäisierung: Plädoyer für eine Horizonterweiterung’. In
Knodt, M. and Kohler-Koch, B. (eds) Deutschland zwischen Europäisierung und
Selbstbehauptung (Frankfurt-am-Main: Campus), pp. 11–31.
Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R. (eds) (1999) The Transformation of Governance in the
European Union (London: Routledge).
Kohn, H. (1937) ‘The Europeanization of the Orient’. Political Science Quarterly,
Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 259–70.
Ladrech, R. (1994) ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case
of France’. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 69–88.
Ladrech, R. (2001) ‘Europeanization and Political Parties: Towards a Framework for
Analysis’. Belfast, Institute of European Studies, Queens University of Belfast,
Queen’s papers on Europeanization No. 2/2001. Available at «http://www.qub.
ac.uk/ies/onlinepapers/poe2-01.pdf», accessed 23 September 2001.
Laffan, B., O’Donnell, R. and Smith, M. (2000) Europe’s Experimental Union.
Rethinking Integration (London: Routledge).
Lave, C.A. and March, J.G. (1975) An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences
(New York: Harper & Row).
Levi-Faur, D. (2002) ‘On the “Net Impact” of Europeanization. The EU’s Telecoms
and Electricity Regimes between the Global and the National’. Oxford, mimeo.
Macey, S. (1998)‘ The European Union and Women’s Rights: From Europeanization
of National Agendas to the Nationalization of a European Agenda’. Journal of
European Public Policy, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 131–52.
Mair, P. (2000) ‘The Limited Impact of Europe on National Party Systems’. Western
European Politics, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 27–51.
March, J.G. (1981) ‘Footnotes to Organizational Change’. Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 563–77.
March, J.G. (1994) A Primer on Decision Making. How Decisions Happen (New
York: Free Press).
March, J.G. (1999) ‘A Learning Perspective on the Network Dynamics of Institutional
Integration. In Egeberg, M. and Lægreid, P. (eds) Organizing Political Institutions
(Oslo: Scandinavian University Press), pp. 129–55.
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions (New York: Free Press).
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1995) Democratic Governance (New York: Free Press).
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1998) ‘The Institutional Dynamics of International
Political Orders’. International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 943–69.
Maurer, A., Wessels, W. and Mittag, J. (2000) ‘Europeanization in and of the EU
System: Trends, Offers and Constraints’. Cologne, Paper for the DFG-workshop
‘Linking EU and National Governance’, Mannheim 1–3 June.

Mény, Y., Muller, P. and Quermonne, J.-J. (eds) (1996) Adjusting to Europe. The
Impact of the European Union on National Institutions and Policies (London:
Routledge).
Metcalfe, L. (1994) ‘International Policy Co-ordination and Public Management
Reform’. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 60, pp. 271–90.
Meyer, J.W. (1996) ‘Otherhood: Promulgation and Transmission of Ideas in the
Modern Organizational Environment’. In Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G. (eds),
pp. 241–72.
Meyer, J.W. (2001) ‘The European Union and the Globalization of Culture’. In
Andersen, S.S. (ed.), pp. 227–45.
Milward, A.S. (1992) The European Rescue of the Nation-State (London: Routledge).
Mjøset, L. (1997) ‘Les significations historiques de l’européanisation’. L’Année de la
régulation, Vol. 1, pp. 85–127. Published in English as ‘The Historical Meanings
of Europeanization’. Oslo, Arena Working Paper No. 24.
Moravcsik, A. (1994) ‘Why the European Community Strengthens the State: Domes-
tic Politics and International Cooperation’. Boston, MA: Harvard University,
Center for European Studies, Working Paper No. 52.
Moravcsik, A. (1999) The Choice for Europe. Social Purpose and State Power from
Messina to Maastricht (London: UCL Press).
Morlino, L. (2000) ‘Europeanization and Representation in Two Europes. Local
Institutions and National Parties’. Florence, Department of Political Science,
University of Florence, Paper prepared for the research meeting on ‘Europeaniza-
tion and Representation in Two Europes’, Florence 16–18 December.
North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Notre Europe (2001) ‘A Wake-up Call for Europe’. Available at «http:/www.notre-
europe.asso.fr/appel-en.htm», accessed 11 November 2001.
Olsen, H. (1998) ‘Europeisering’ av universitetet: Full og helt - eller stykkevis og delt.
Hvordan Universitetet i Oslo har respondert på fremveksten av en forsknings- og
utdanningspolitikk på EU-nivå’. Oslo, Arena Report No. 2/98.
Olsen, J.P. (1996) ‘Europeanization and Nation State Dynamics’. In Gustavsson, S.
and Lewin, L. (eds) The Future of the Nation State (Stockholm: Nerenius &
Santérus), pp. 245–85.
Olsen, J.P. (1997a) ‘The Changing Political Organization of Europe: An Institutional
Perspective on the Role of Comprehensive Reform Efforts’. In Hesse, J.J. and
Thoonen, T.A.J. (eds) The Yearbook of Comparative Government and Public
Administration. Vol. II 1995 (Baden-Baden: Nomos).
Olsen, J.P. (1997b) ‘Institutional Design in Democratic Contexts’. Journal of Polit-
ical Philosophy, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 203–29.
Olsen, J.P. (2001) ‘Organizing European Institutions of Governance … a Prelude to
an Institutional Account of Political Integration’. In Wallace, H. (ed.), pp. 323–53.
Olsen, J.P. and Peters, B.G. (1996) Lessons from Experience. Experiential Learning
in Administrative Reforms in Eight Democracies (Oslo: Scandinavian University
Press).

950 JOHAN P. OLSEN
Orren, K. and Skowronek, S. (2001) ‘What is Political Development?’. Los Angeles/

New Haven, paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political
Science Association, San Francisco, 29 August–2 September.
Page, E.C. and Wouters, L. (1995) ‘The Europeanization of the National Bureaucra-
cies?’. In Pierre, J. (ed.) Bureaucracy in the Modern State (Aldershot: Edward
Elgar), pp. 185–204.
Patten, C. (2001) ‘Sovereignty, Democracy and Constitutions – Finding the Right
Formula’. 2001 Schuman Lecture Australian National University, Canberra, 19
April. Available at «http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/g...txt=gt&doc=SPEECH/
01/171|0|RAPID&lg=eng», accessed 30 April 2001.
Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Prodi, R. (2001) ‘For a Strong Europe, with a Grand Design and the Means of Action’.
Speech at Institut d’Etudes Politiques, Paris 29 May. Available at «http://
europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/prodi/paris-en.htm», accessed 6 May 2001.
Puchala, D.J. (1999) ‘Institutionalism, Intergovernmentalism and European Integra-
tion: A Review Article’. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.
317–31.
Raadschelders, J.C.N. and Toonen, T.A.J. (1992) ‘Public Sector Reform in Western
Europe: A Comparative View’. Leiden, Leiden University, Department of Public
Administration), mimeo.
Radaelli, C.M. (1997) ‘How Does Europeanization Produce Domestic Policy Change.
Corporate Tax Policy in Italy and the United Kingdom’. Comparative Political
Studies, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 553–75.
Radaelli, C.M. (2000) ‘Whither Europeanization? Concept Stretching and Substan-
tive Change’. Available at «http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-008.htm», accessed
11 May 2001.
Radaelli, C.M. (2001) ‘The Domestic Impact of European Union Policy: Notes on
Concepts, Methods, and the Challenge of Empirical Research’. To appear in
Politique Européenne.
Risse, T., Cowles, M.G. and Caporaso, J. (2001) ‘Europeanization and Domestic
Change: Introduction’. In Cowles, M.G. et al. (eds), pp. 1–20.
Rokkan, S. (1999) (ed. by Flora, P. with Kuhnle, S. and Urwin, D.) State Formation,
Nation-Building and Mass Politics in Europe. The Theory of Stein Rokkan
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Rometsch, D. and Wessels, W. (eds) (1996) The European Union and Member States.
Towards Institutional Fusion (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Sbragia, A. (2001) ‘Italy Pays for Europe: Political Leadership, Political Choice, and
Institutional Adaptation’. In Cowles, M.G. et al. (eds.), pp. 79–96.
Scharpf, F.W. (1999) Governing in Europe. Effective and Democratic? (Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
Schimmelfennig, F. (2001) ‘The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action,
and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union’. International Organization,
Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 47–80.

Schlesinger, P.R. (1992) ‘ “Europeanness” – A New Cultural Battlefield’. Innovation
in Social Sciences Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 11–23.
Schlesinger, P.R. (1993) ‘Wishful Thinking: Cultural Politics, Media, and Collective
Identities in Europe’. Journal of Communication, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 6–17.
Schmitter, P. (2000) How to Democratize the European Union ... And Why Bother?’
(Boston: Rowman and Littlefield).
Schneider, G. and Aspinwall, M. (eds) (2001) The Rules of Integration. Institutionalist
Approaches to the Study of Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Schneider, V. (2001) ‘Institutional Reform in Telecommunications: The European
Union in Transnational Policy Diffusion’. In Cowles, M.G. et al. (eds), pp. 60–78.
Sedelmeier, U. (2001) ‘Eastern Enlargement: Risk, Rationality, and Role-Compli-
ance. In Cowles, M.G. and Smith, M. (eds) The State of the European Union. Vol.
5: Risk. Reform, Resistance, and Revival (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp.
164–85.
Sjursen, H. (2001a) ‘The Common Foreign and Security Policy: Limits of Intergov-
ernmentalism and the Search for a Global Role. In Andersen, S.S. and Eliassen,
K.A. (eds), pp. 187–205.
Sjursen, H. (2001b) ‘Why Expand? Questions of Justification of the EU’s Enlarge-
ment Policy’. Oslo, Arena Working Paper 2001 No. 6 (revised).
Stone Sweet, A. and Sandholtz, W. (1998) ‘Integration, Supranational Governance
and the Institutionalization of the European Polity. In Sandholtz, W. and Stone
Sweet, A. (eds) European Integration and Supranational Governance (Oxford:
Oxford University Press), pp. 1–26.
Stone Sweet, A., Sandholtz, W. and Fliegstein, N. (2001) The Institutionalization of
Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Strang, D. (1991) ‘Anomaly and Commonplace in European Political Expansion:
Realist and Institutional Accounts’. International Organization, Vol. 45, No. 2,
pp. 143–62.
Sverdrup, U.I. (2000) ‘Ambiguity and Adaptation. Europeanization of Administrative
Institutions as Loosely Coupled Processes’. Oslo, Arena Report No. 8/2000.
Tèlo, M. (ed.) (2001) European Union and New Regionalism. Regional Actors and
Global Governance in a Post-Hegemonic Era (Aldershot: Ashgate).
Therborn, G. (2001) ‘Europe – Super power or a Scandinavia of the World?’. In Tèlo,
M. (ed.), pp. 227–43.
Trondal, J. (2001) ‘Administrative Integration Across Levels of Governance. Integra-
tion through Participation in EU-Committees’. Oslo, Arena Report No. 7/2001.
Ugland, T. (2002) ‘Policy Re-categorization and Integration. Europeanization of
Nordic Alcohol Control Policies’. Oslo, Arena Report No. 3/2002.
Venturelli, S.S. (1993) ‘The Imagined Transnational Public Sphere in the European
Community’s Broadcast Philosophy: Implications for Democracy’. European
Journal of Communication, Vol. 8, pp. 491–518.
Verdier, D. and Breen, R. (2001) ‘Europeanization and Globalization. Politics against
Markets in the European Union’. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 34 , No.1,
pp. 227–62.

952 JOHAN P. OLSEN
Wallace, H. (1999) ‘The Domestication of Europe: Contrasting Experiences of EU

Membership and Non-membership’. Leiden, University of Leiden, Department of
Political Science, Sixth Daalder Lecture.
Wallace, H. (2000) ‘Europeanisation and Globalisation: Complementary or Contra-
dictory Trends?’. New Political Economy, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 369–82.
Wallace, H. (ed.) (2001) Interlocking Dimensions of European Integration (Basing-
stoke: Palgrave).
Weber, M. (1947) ‘Die protestantischen Sekten under der Geist des Kapitalismus’. In
Weber, M. (ed.) Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie (Tübingen: J.C.B.
Mohr), pp. 207–36.
Weiss, L. (1998) The Myth of the Powerless State (Ithaca NY: Cornell University
Press).
Wessels, W. (1996) ‘Institutions of the EU System: Models of Explanation’. In
Rometsch, D. and Wessels, W. (eds), pp. 20–36.
Wessels, W., Maurer, A. and Mittag, J. (eds) (2001) Fifteen into One? The European
Union and its Member States (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Wessels, W. and Rometsch, D. (1996) ‘Conclusion: European Union and National
Institutions. In Rometsch, D. and Wessels, W. (eds), pp. 328–65.
Zielonka, J. (ed.) (2001) Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe. Volume 1
Institutional Engineering (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Zimmer, S. (1990) ‘On Indo-Europeanization’. Journal of Indo-European Studies,
Vol. 18, No. 1/2, pp. 141–55.

The Many Faces of Europeanization : JCMS 2002 Volume 40. Number 5. Pp. 921-52

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Many Faces of Europeanization : JCMS 2002 Volume 40. Number 5. Pp. 921-52

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Many Faces of Europeanization : JCMS 2002 Volume 40. Number 5. Pp. 921-52

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JCMS 2002 Volume 40. Number 5. pp.

The Many Faces of Europeanization*

Introduction: A Fashionable Term, but is it Useful?

Still, it may be premature to abandon the term. This is so because most

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

an attempt to approach the why-question and to suggest some research chal-

I. Europeanization: What, How, Why?

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

levels of governance. All multilevel systems of governance need to work out

The next step, then, is to suggest a possible way of understanding institu-

phenomenon or situation better than others, there is no reason to expect a

ration and innovation. Talk of Europeanization, like talk of Americanization

II. The Changing Boundary of ‘Europe’

III. Developing European-Level Institutions

on their own. For instance, the European Union is assumed to be involved in

Council and the Council of Europe. Another option is to compare attempts at

universities (Dineen, 1992; H. Olsen, 1998) and in national history writing

IV. Domestic Impacts of European-Level Institutions

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

likely to be avoided. We need to understand which experiences actors are

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Second, differentiated responses are likely because the (west) European

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Simultaneously, among ordinary citizens, national identities are reaffirmed

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

V. Exporting European Institutions

casting’ and exposure to organized efforts of arguing, persuasion or indoctri-

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Currently, Europe finds itself in a new period of experimentation and

by the resourceful are ceteris paribus more likely to spread. Therefore, we

VI. Political Unification of Europe

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

As of now, there are also few agreed indicators of Europeanization as po-

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

VII. A Model-Building, not Definitional Challenge

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

most challenging for those wanting to theorize European institutional dynam-

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Caporaso, J.A. and Stone Sweet, A. (2001) ‘Conclusion: Institutional Logics of

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Orren, K. and Skowronek, S. (2001) ‘What is Political Development?’. Los Angeles/

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Wallace, H. (1999) ‘The Domestication of Europe: Contrasting Experiences of EU

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

You might also like