The Europeanization of Turkey

Ali Tekin, Aylin Güney

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317557029
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Politique

Given the recent inertia in EU-Turkey relations in the midst of regional economic and political upheavals, Europeanization of Turkey takes a step back from the latest headlines to provide a comprehensive stocktaking of EU-inspired reform efforts in Turkey with an eye to understanding how effective or ineffective EU conditionality has been in making Turkey's key political institutions, actors and culture more compatible with European norms.

In addition to contributing to the theoretical literature on the differential effects of Europeanization on the domestic realm, this volume also expands the existing scope of research to include questions of how socialization through the accession process operates under high levels of uncertainty about the attainability of European Union membership. Applying a uniform analytical framework and the methodology of process tracing, the authors in this volume assess the nature and degree of change that has occurred in various dimensions of Turkish domestic polity and politics in the context of Turkey's post-1999 EU accession.

Engaging with important practical issues such as whether potential membership in the EU has brought about positive change, in which areas this change is manifest, and how significant this change has been, this book is an essential resource for students, scholars and researchers seeking to understand contemporary relations between the EU and Turkey.

Part I

Introduction

1 Introduction

A framework of analysis for the Europeanization of Turkey

Ali Tekin

This short introductory chapter aims to provide a framework of analysis for the Europeanization of Turkey as a candidate and accession country since 1999. For that purpose, it first elaborates on the theory, definition, processes, outcomes and domains of Europeanization. It then presents an analytical framework containing a set of common questions intended to enhance the degree of consistency across the contributions. It finally introduces each of the subsequent chapters of the volume.

Europeanization: general theoretical context

Since the seminal work by Peter Gourevitch (1978) on the “second image reversed” process, the impact of the international system on domestic systems has been a common theme in international relations scholarship. The fields of comparative and European politics, especially with the institutional turn in the 1990s, have meshed well with the second image reversed research agenda of international relations scholars. The recent literature on Europeanization, which “is nothing but an instance of [second image reversed research] designs” (Radaelli 2003, p. 34) and broadly based on new institutionalism, has expanded dramatically.

The roots of Europeanization literature date back to previous decades. The early Europeanization research focused on “European integration,” namely “why more and more member state policies are being drawn into the political and judicial processes at the European level” (Heritier 2005, pp. 199–200). As the European Union (EU) was increasingly conceptualized as a polity in the aftermath of the Single European Act, the so-called second generation of Europeanization research emerged, “conceived of as the impact of clearly defined, individual EU policy measures on the existing policies, political and administrative processes, and structures of member states” (Heritier 2005, p. 200). Indeed, as Caporaso argues, “Europeanization is a logical outgrowth of the evolution of integration theory” (2007, p. 23) in the sense that, once a consensus was reached on the “conceptualization of Europe as a system with many levels,” it was inevitable to ask “(h)ow do integration and European policy making affect the very states responsible for integration in the first place?” (2007, p. 23).

With the big-bang enlargement of the EU in the 2000s, the Europeanization literature widened its coverage to include analysis of the impact of the EU accession process on the new member and candidate states (Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2005; Sedelmeier 2011; Héritier 2005; Grabbe 2003). With this extension of Europeanization studies, the role of power asymmetry between the EU and the candidate state as well as the importance of credible membership prospects gained salience in the literature (see Grabbe 2003). As the Europeanization of candidate states is analyzed, different factors that affect Europeanization dynamics have come to the fore (see Börzel 2012). The next section places these factors in the context of the overall Europeanization literature and paves the way for building our analytical framework.

Definition of Europeanization

Europeanization has become a fashionable concept in EU studies, but the definition of the concept – the most basic pillar of a research agenda – is still contested. Olsen’s seminal article (2002) distinguishes between five possible definitions: changes in external boundaries, developing institutions at the European level, central penetration of national systems of governance, exporting forms of political organization, and a political unification project. Similarly, in another comprehensive and widely cited source, Radaelli (2003, p. 30) defines Europeanization as:

processes of (a) construction, (b) diffusion, and (c) institutionalization of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, “ways of doing things,” and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the making of EU public policy and politics and then incorporated in the logic of domestic discourses, identities, political structures, and public policies.

Based on Olsen’s above typology, Bulmer sums up these two main understandings of Europeanization as “the transfer from ‘Europe’ to other jurisdictions of policy, institutional arrangements, rules, beliefs, or norms, on the one hand; and building European capacity, on the other hand” (Bulmer 2007, p. 47).

In this work, we define Europeanization mainly as a “top-down” process for the principal reason that candidate countries are asymmetrically located vis-à-vis EU institutions and policies and may lack proper channels to influence EU policies in any policy sector in a meaningful way. Indeed, Heritier differentiates between Europeanization West and East and argues that the latter, “at this stage, seems to be more of a one-way street” (Heritier 2005, p. 207). Thus, in parallel with the literature on new members/candidates, in this study we utilize the concept of “accession” Europeanization (Heritier 2005).

Processes of Europeanization

Misfit

Misfit between EU policies, practices and institutions and national policies, practices and institutions is taken as a necessary but insufficient condition for Europeanization (Börzel and Risse 2000). Certain policies and institutions of the EU cause policy or institutional misfit in the member/candidate states. Policy misfit refers to a mismatch between EU policy proscriptions and domestic policies. Such direct policy misfit may also put strain on the institutions. Institutional misfit is generally more indirect in the sense that EU practices, norms and institutions might strain formal and informal institutions at the domestic level (Börzel and Risse 2000). In the case of candidate states, policy misfit can be found between the EU requirements for accession and domestic policies. Formal institutional misfit can be often traced to the lack of sufficient institutional capacity in candidate states to successfully manage the accession process and formal interaction with the EU. Informal institutional misfit, on the other hand, can be observed when EU norms clash with the existing deep-seated domestic norms. Thus, an EU norm may lead to institutional misfit even if it is not part of EU conditionality for accession.

Mediating domestic factors

Policy and institutional misfit leads to Europeanization only if it is acted upon by domestic actors and the process is mediated by domestic institutions. The scholarship has identified a number of mediating domestic factors between the EU impetus and member/candidate state action – including the number of veto points in the political system, differential empowerment of domestic actors, formal institutions and political culture (Cowles et al. 2001, pp. 9–11), the image of the EU held by elites and society (Sbragia 2001), social learning (Checkel 2001) and discourse (Schmidt and Radaelli 2004) – to account for variation in Europeanization outcomes. Mediating conditions can be categorized according to those identified by rational choice institutionalism and those identified by sociological institutionalism (Börzel 2012).

Rational choice institutionalism assumes actors to be rational, interest-maximizing and acting according to a logic of consequences. Accordingly, European integration and the resultant misfit change the domestic opportunity structure for domestic actors. This change leads to differential empowerment of domestic actors and results in domestic change if the favored actors can exploit the new resources made available to them. The existence of fewer veto points in the decision-making system makes it more likely for the domestic actors to be able to build the necessary consensus for enacting change. Likewise, the existence of supporting formal institutions also enables domestic actors to exploit the new resources. For instance, unitary state structures are not facilitative for sub-state actors to exploit emerging opportunity structures at the EU level (Börzel and Risse 2000).

Sociological institutionalism on the other hand assumes that actors behave in accordance with a logic of appropriateness; they seek conformity with social norms, and rationality is socially constructed. This framework interprets Europeanization as a provision of new norms and meaning structures that define legitimate and rational behavior, with which domestic actors strive to comply (Börzel and Risse 2000). Sociological institutionalism proposes the existence of norm entrepreneurs who work towards convincing political actors to comply with EU norms as a facilitator of Europeanizing domestic change. Moreover, facilitating political culture and informal institutions are put forward as mediating factors. For instance, the more consensus-oriented the domestic political culture, the easier adaptation to European integration becomes.

Mechanisms

Different mechanisms of Europeanization have been hypothesized by the literature on accession Europeanization. This literature proceeds on the basis of either rational choice or sociological assumptions. Rational choice assumptions suggest the following three mechanisms:

1 Conditionality: based on strategic, instrumental rational-actor assumptions, the model expects a logic of consequences to be operative in the rule-adoption behavior of the non-member state under the conditions of external incentives by the EU, namely the reward of membership (Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2005). The main variables in this model are external rewards and sanctions as well as cost–benefit analysis of rule adoption by the applicant government.

2 Domestic empowerment: the EU can alter domestic opportunity structures by providing incentives for societal actors, which in turn can lead to a change in the cost–benefit calculation of the government of the candidate state (Sedelmeier 2011).

3 Lesson-drawing: both the government and societal actors can draw lessons from the EU to tackle better the problems they face.

On the other hand, social learning, couched in sociological institutionalist assumptions, presents itself as another way of stimulating rule-adoption behavior in the non-member state. This mechanism assumes that “actors are motivated by their internalized identities, values and norms” (Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2005, p. 9) and act on the basis of a logic of appropriateness, which results in the actors’ choosing the most appropriate one among the alternative courses of action. According to this variant, political elites learn from the EU and internalize its norms. After the learning process, EU norms become guiding principles for the political elite’s behavior. The odds of successful socialization depend on the existence of an important mediating factor: the existence of norm entrepreneurs (Börzel and Risse 2003). These norm entrepreneurs can be actors from the candidate country and/or the EU. Norm entrepreneurs embrace a norm and try to convince the elite of its appropriateness by using moral arguments (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). Accordingly, EU officials or politicians as well as domestic societal or state actors may serve as norm entrepreneurs and may persuade the elite of the virtues of a given norm. The EU serves as a norm entrepreneur in what Christopher Knill and Dirk Lehmkuhl call framing integration (Knill and Lehmkuhl 1999), whereby the EU aims “to change domestic political climate by stimulating and strengthening the overall support for broader European reform objectives” (Radaelli 2003, p. 41).

Outcomes of Europeanization

Börzel and Risse (2003, pp. 69–71) distinguish “three degrees of domestic change”: absorption, accommodation and transformation. Radaelli (2003, p. 37), on the other hand, groups outcomes into four categories: retrenchment, inertia, absorption, and transformation. In order to simplify but account for the cases of non-impact, which may be particularly common in a candidate country with no clear prospect of EU membership, we adopt four types of policy responses:

1 Inertia: the EU policy/norm/practice causes tension but no alteration ensues.

2 Absorption: the EU policy/norm/practice is adopted without any tension or need for alteration.

3 Accommodation: the EU policy/norm/practice causes tension but alters the national system only slightly.

4 Transformation: the EU policy/norm/practice causes tension and alters the underlying national political philosophy.

Domains of Europeanization

In many single-country studies of both older and newer EU members, the literature commonly engages the domestic impact of the EU by employing a tripartite division among polity, politics and policy (Laffan and O’Mahoney 2008, p. 2; also see Bache and Jordan 2008; Bulmer and Radaelli 2005). These studies differ slightly along these categories, but we will take them here to mean the following:

1 Polity – institutional architecture of the domestic system;

2 Politics – actors, interests, ideas, identities and actions of the domestic political process;

3 Policy – particular sectors of public policy.

In this volume, only the first two domains – polity and politics – will be studied on the basis of a three-stage analysis.

Analytical framework: a three-stage analysis

As Radaelli (2003, p. 32) argues, “[o]ur analytical grid has to be broad enough to accommodate a wide range of empirical observations that may have something to do with Europeanization,” but we must not fall into the trap of “degreeism.” Therefore in what follows we aim to provide a range of questions, which do not necessarily cover all the possible aspects/findings yet can serve as a useful analytical point of departure.

We pose a common set of questions that each author tries to answer in the following chapters. These are:

1 The misfit:

a What are the EU policy/rule/norm requirements?

b How was the issue (policy/polity/politics) area (in Turkey) before December 1999?

c What is the “goodness of fit” between the domestic status quo and the EU rule? Is there a policy misfit or an institutional misfit, or neither, or both?

2 Processes of Europeanization:

a Are there any costs and benefits to the government of adopting the EU rule in question?

b Does the interaction lead to differential political empowerment of competing domestic actors – in other words, who wins or loses from the process that would cause domestic change?

c Can the government draw any lesson from the EU to tackle an outstanding domestic problem in a more cost-effective way?

d Is there any social learning from the EU through persuasion?

3 Outcomes:

a Inertia: is the status quo preserved?

b Absorption: is the EU requirement assimilated into the system without much friction?

c Accommodation: is the EU requirement adopted with only superficial or minor changes to the domestic system?

d Transformation: is the EU requirement adopted only after major changes in national policy, institutional structure and underlying policy-making philosophy?

Methodology

One of the methodological problems of Europeanization research is in distinguishing the impact of the EU on the national system from the impact of other possible sources, namely globalization and domestic politics. Cowles and Risse suggest that Europeanization may reinforce, capitalize on, or fend off the forces of globalization (Cowles and Risse 2001, pp. 220–21). These could be global market forces, international financial and other types of institutions, transnational activists or organizations, historical events such as the end of the Cold War and so on (see, for example, Checkel 2001). Another challenge is to differentiate between EU pressures and the pressures emanating from the member or candidate states themselves. However, it is generally argued that even though globalization and domestic factors can exert independent influence on domestic change, Europeanization serves a focal point around which domestic change (processes) are channeled or addressed (Cowles and Risse 2001, p. 221).

To disentangle the EU’s effects from other potential drivers of change, we follow a slightly revised version of the research steps suggested by Bache and Jordan (2008, pp. 29–30):

1 Careful historical analysis: that is, is there an obvious change after EU candidacy, or does the change in question pre-date candidacy?

2 Employing a process tracing approach: that is, starting with domestic changes and tracing causal chains back to underlying triggers.

3 Actively exploring counterfactuals: that is, what would have happened without the EU?

Periodization of the Turkish case

Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier distinguish temporally between the context of democratic conditionality and the context of acquis conditionality. In the former, EU conditionality is geared towards ensuring that the country adopts “the fundamental political principles of the EU, the norms of human rights and liberal democracy, and the institutions of the market economy. These rules are not only fundamental for the EU, but for the entire western community of states” (Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2005, pp. 211–12). On the other hand, acquis conditionality becomes operative when the candidate country starts to prepare for full membership; the EU sets rather strict pre-accession conditionality, which the candidate country must make significant progress in adopting before the start of the accession talks and must fully comply with before accession (Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2005, p. 212). Even though it is not always easy to identify this distinction in case studies, it makes sense to divide the Turkish case roughly into two distinct periods: the 1999–2005 period, in which democratic conditionality dominated the relations; and the post-2005 period, in which acquis conditionality became more visible, though democratic conditionality had not disappeared. Thus our authors will try to identify this temporal distinction in their case studies.

Outline of the book

Thi...