An evaluation of Eastern European enlargement: The political and economic impact on European citizens
World War II affected the European continent more than any other place in the world. After the war the reconstruction of Europe, the elimination of hunger and poverty and the creation of an area of peace, stability and prosperity was the primary concern for all European governments. Before and during this period, the founding fathers of the European Union (EU) had started to elaborate the idea of European integration. The vision of a united Europe was the solution not only for the short-term anxieties but also for the philosophical and ideological questionings. Consequently, in 1951 the European architects created the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and in 1957 the six founding members France, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, Belgium and Netherlands signed the treaty of Rome, creating the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). The developments above were the first and most significant steps towards the European Union.
The past forty years have demonstrated increasingly rapid evolution in the field of European integration. However, this rapid expansion is having a serious effect on the political and economic life of EU citizens. This paper will begin by introducing the definitions of European integration and enlargement. It will then go on to the presentation of several European enlargements and the driving forces of integration and Eastern Enlargement. The third section will evaluate some of the political and economic effects of Eastern European enlargement. Finally, in the conclusion it will present the most important findings. As a consequence, this study will focus on the issue of Eastern European enlargement by noting that European enlargement is the main integration strategy which strengths every aspect of political and economic life of European citizens but at the same time stimulates growing fears for the process itself.
The questions of what are the primary reasons for European integration and what drives European enlargement are still being debated. However, it is more appropriate first to define the two disciplines even though the former concept has many different meanings among the scholars (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2006). According to Haas (1961, p. 366) integration is ‘the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations, and political activities toward a new and larger center’. Therefore, European integration is a process which the European states bring under a common authority every aspect of social political and economic life. In addition, European enlargement is the core European policy for integration. Indeed, enlargement is ‘a general term used to describe the process of admission of new states into the EU’ (Phinnemore and McGowan 2002, p.133).
It is fact that the EU has twenty seven member states but at the same time the number of rounds of enlargement is not so straightforward. For the purposes of this paper, the stages have been categorized into four different enlargements relevant to the political necessities which put them forward into realization. At first, in 1973 the European community accepted as new members Ireland, Denmark and Britain. In addition, in 1981 and 1986 three more states Greece and Spain, Portugal became new members of the European community respectively. The expansion above is often regarded as Mediterranean enlargement. Moreover, the third European enlargement is the so-called E.F.T.A enlargement of 1995 when Sweden, Finland and Austria became members of the EU. The above abbreviation of E.F.T.A refers to the European Free Trade Association which is an international agreement for free trade. Finally, the fourth enlargement it is known as Eastern Enlargement and was completed in two different stages in 2004 and 2007 when 12 new member states became members of the EU. As a result, in 2004 the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, Poland and Slovakia and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU.
Having defined the two explanations an additional exegesis should be given for the primary reasons of European integration. Indeed, three main explanations can be identified. First, the federalist-geopolitical explanation which states that European integration was developed in order to stimulate consensus against USSR, to stop war and to decrease nationalism (Moravcsik, 2008). Federalism argues that peace and prosperity can be achieved only by international federation (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2006). Second, the neofunctionalist-economic explanation which stresses that European integration is a result of increased interdependence among political and economic actors to promote their interests (Wallace, 1999). Neofunctionalism supposes that every political community can be realized through the spillovers of economic cooperation (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2006). Third, the ‘Tripartite New Synthesis’ explains European integration as a form of governmental reaction to shared functional problems in three stages-theories namely interdependence, Nash bargaining and international regimes (Moravcsik 2008, p.159-160). Nonetheless, two main reasons can be identified as the driving factors of Eastern enlargement. On the one hand, it could be argued that European commitment for enlargement cannot be neglected and on the other hand it could also be said that Eastern enlargement was driven by the member states with economic and geopolitical concerns (Moravcsik, 2008). As a result the argument above provides a historical, political and economic explanation for Eastern European enlargement.
Even though, a substantial explanation has been given for the two first sections of this paper it is time to valuate how Eastern enlargement has affected the political and economic life of citizens. At first, as Dinan (2005, p. 2) says ‘’No European country is bigger than a midsized global power; close political and economic collaboration helps European countries maximize their global influence and potential’’. Therefore, Eastern enlargement has increased the EU’s international bargaining power substantially. The above fact has an indirect positive impact on the citizens because better bargaining power implies better economic and political prospects for them. Consequently, it is not surprising that the 73 percent of European citizens believe that Eastern European enlargement positively contributed to the EU’s international role (European Commission 2009d, p. 20). In contrast, Eastern enlargement has contributed to the development of an even more complicated international organization that is closer to bureaucracy. Furthermore, nearly 66 percent of European citizens believe that Eastern European enlargement negatively affected the governance of the EU (European Commission 2009d, p30). Consequently, European citizens are unable to democratically influence the European institutions. As Follesdal and Hix (2006, p. 557) asserts the EU suffers from a democratic deficit and the ‘political elites should make a commitment to open the door to more politicization of the EU agenda’. Moreover, it can be argued that the political decisions for the reallocation of structural and agricultural funds and the institutional changes have increased the concerns for citizens for Eastern European enlargement (Bache and George, 2006). For instance, a financial assistance from the EU to the new members was 45 billion Euros and the reallocations of the number of votes in European Council and European Parliament was decided before Eastern enlargement (European Commission 2003, p. 30). Furthermore many authors believe that Eastern enlargement was one of the main factors for the constitutional failure of 2005 (Murphy, 2006). However, as Moravcsik and Vachudova (2003) state budget policies are not able to have a destabilizing effect in the EU. Moreover, Moravcsik argues that neither the democratic deficit nor the governance is problematic in the EU (Moravcsik, 2002). Besides, many other explanations can be found for the constitutional failure (Moravcsik, 2008). As a result, it can be said that even though Eastern enlargement affected European citizen’s opinion in political terms negatively at the same time created a more stable and powerful European organization which provides to its citizens political stability, bargaining power, democracy and equal opportunities.
In addition, Eastern enlargement increased the European population by nearly a hundred million people. Consequently, the above fact created a series of important positive and negative effects of Eastern enlargement to the European citizens. On the one hand, a more competitive and more stable European market was created. As a result, from 1999 to 2007 the flows of trade between member states increased from 175 billion to 500 billion (Rehn, 2009). Moreover, the 92 percent of European citizens believe that Eastern enlargement has provided better possibilities for traveling and migrating (European Commission 2009d, p.20). On the other hand, the European citizens asserted their worries about the effect of Eastern enlargement on income, job security, migration and living standards (European Commission 2009a, p.19). Even though, the European citizens expressed their concerns, Eastern enlargement has created demand for products from the new countries that straightforward affected European companies to create more jobs (European Commission, 2009c). Furthermore, increased competitiveness had a positive effect on the quality of products and services. In fact, neither the concerns for the negative impact of enlargement on income nor on migration have confirmed. As the European commission states for migration ‘the relative weight […] is small around 1% or less with the exception of Ireland’ (European Commission 2009b, p. 6). Furthermore, Barrell, FitzGeralnd and Riley (2007, p. 20) reaffirm that ‘the immigration associated with the enlargement of the EU in May 2004 has so far proved modest’. As a result, 58 percent of European citizens confirm that the European internal and external security was improved after Eastern enlargement (European Commission 2009d. p 21). Besides, it can be stated that old European states income improved as a consequence of Eastern enlargement (European Commission, 2009b). Finally, according to the European Commission (2009d, p. 20) the majority of European citizens (62%) believe that Eastern enlargement has contributed positively to the increased levels of prosperity and competitiveness. It is clear that in economic terms Eastern enlargement has positively affected prosperity, development, growth and security for all European citizens, even though; the latter expressed their concerns for the process itself.
In conclusion, this essay has argued that although the citizens of the EU expressed their concerns for the process of Eastern European enlargement, in fact, the latest has played a crucial role for peace, prosperity, stability, competitiveness and growth and it has positively affected the European community. Taken together, these results suggest that the EU is the most fascinating political and economic phenomenon of the contemporary world because by this way or another affects our social behavior and action. As a result, it can be argued that even though many people express their concerns for the process of European enlargement, the EU will continue to expand by incorporating new regions, new cultural elements, new citizens and new states.
The past forty years have demonstrated increasingly rapid evolution in the field of European integration. However, this rapid expansion is having a serious effect on the political and economic life of EU citizens. This paper will begin by introducing the definitions of European integration and enlargement. It will then go on to the presentation of several European enlargements and the driving forces of integration and Eastern Enlargement. The third section will evaluate some of the political and economic effects of Eastern European enlargement. Finally, in the conclusion it will present the most important findings. As a consequence, this study will focus on the issue of Eastern European enlargement by noting that European enlargement is the main integration strategy which strengths every aspect of political and economic life of European citizens but at the same time stimulates growing fears for the process itself.
The questions of what are the primary reasons for European integration and what drives European enlargement are still being debated. However, it is more appropriate first to define the two disciplines even though the former concept has many different meanings among the scholars (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2006). According to Haas (1961, p. 366) integration is ‘the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations, and political activities toward a new and larger center’. Therefore, European integration is a process which the European states bring under a common authority every aspect of social political and economic life. In addition, European enlargement is the core European policy for integration. Indeed, enlargement is ‘a general term used to describe the process of admission of new states into the EU’ (Phinnemore and McGowan 2002, p.133).
It is fact that the EU has twenty seven member states but at the same time the number of rounds of enlargement is not so straightforward. For the purposes of this paper, the stages have been categorized into four different enlargements relevant to the political necessities which put them forward into realization. At first, in 1973 the European community accepted as new members Ireland, Denmark and Britain. In addition, in 1981 and 1986 three more states Greece and Spain, Portugal became new members of the European community respectively. The expansion above is often regarded as Mediterranean enlargement. Moreover, the third European enlargement is the so-called E.F.T.A enlargement of 1995 when Sweden, Finland and Austria became members of the EU. The above abbreviation of E.F.T.A refers to the European Free Trade Association which is an international agreement for free trade. Finally, the fourth enlargement it is known as Eastern Enlargement and was completed in two different stages in 2004 and 2007 when 12 new member states became members of the EU. As a result, in 2004 the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, Poland and Slovakia and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU.
Having defined the two explanations an additional exegesis should be given for the primary reasons of European integration. Indeed, three main explanations can be identified. First, the federalist-geopolitical explanation which states that European integration was developed in order to stimulate consensus against USSR, to stop war and to decrease nationalism (Moravcsik, 2008). Federalism argues that peace and prosperity can be achieved only by international federation (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2006). Second, the neofunctionalist-economic explanation which stresses that European integration is a result of increased interdependence among political and economic actors to promote their interests (Wallace, 1999). Neofunctionalism supposes that every political community can be realized through the spillovers of economic cooperation (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2006). Third, the ‘Tripartite New Synthesis’ explains European integration as a form of governmental reaction to shared functional problems in three stages-theories namely interdependence, Nash bargaining and international regimes (Moravcsik 2008, p.159-160). Nonetheless, two main reasons can be identified as the driving factors of Eastern enlargement. On the one hand, it could be argued that European commitment for enlargement cannot be neglected and on the other hand it could also be said that Eastern enlargement was driven by the member states with economic and geopolitical concerns (Moravcsik, 2008). As a result the argument above provides a historical, political and economic explanation for Eastern European enlargement.
Even though, a substantial explanation has been given for the two first sections of this paper it is time to valuate how Eastern enlargement has affected the political and economic life of citizens. At first, as Dinan (2005, p. 2) says ‘’No European country is bigger than a midsized global power; close political and economic collaboration helps European countries maximize their global influence and potential’’. Therefore, Eastern enlargement has increased the EU’s international bargaining power substantially. The above fact has an indirect positive impact on the citizens because better bargaining power implies better economic and political prospects for them. Consequently, it is not surprising that the 73 percent of European citizens believe that Eastern European enlargement positively contributed to the EU’s international role (European Commission 2009d, p. 20). In contrast, Eastern enlargement has contributed to the development of an even more complicated international organization that is closer to bureaucracy. Furthermore, nearly 66 percent of European citizens believe that Eastern European enlargement negatively affected the governance of the EU (European Commission 2009d, p30). Consequently, European citizens are unable to democratically influence the European institutions. As Follesdal and Hix (2006, p. 557) asserts the EU suffers from a democratic deficit and the ‘political elites should make a commitment to open the door to more politicization of the EU agenda’. Moreover, it can be argued that the political decisions for the reallocation of structural and agricultural funds and the institutional changes have increased the concerns for citizens for Eastern European enlargement (Bache and George, 2006). For instance, a financial assistance from the EU to the new members was 45 billion Euros and the reallocations of the number of votes in European Council and European Parliament was decided before Eastern enlargement (European Commission 2003, p. 30). Furthermore many authors believe that Eastern enlargement was one of the main factors for the constitutional failure of 2005 (Murphy, 2006). However, as Moravcsik and Vachudova (2003) state budget policies are not able to have a destabilizing effect in the EU. Moreover, Moravcsik argues that neither the democratic deficit nor the governance is problematic in the EU (Moravcsik, 2002). Besides, many other explanations can be found for the constitutional failure (Moravcsik, 2008). As a result, it can be said that even though Eastern enlargement affected European citizen’s opinion in political terms negatively at the same time created a more stable and powerful European organization which provides to its citizens political stability, bargaining power, democracy and equal opportunities.
In addition, Eastern enlargement increased the European population by nearly a hundred million people. Consequently, the above fact created a series of important positive and negative effects of Eastern enlargement to the European citizens. On the one hand, a more competitive and more stable European market was created. As a result, from 1999 to 2007 the flows of trade between member states increased from 175 billion to 500 billion (Rehn, 2009). Moreover, the 92 percent of European citizens believe that Eastern enlargement has provided better possibilities for traveling and migrating (European Commission 2009d, p.20). On the other hand, the European citizens asserted their worries about the effect of Eastern enlargement on income, job security, migration and living standards (European Commission 2009a, p.19). Even though, the European citizens expressed their concerns, Eastern enlargement has created demand for products from the new countries that straightforward affected European companies to create more jobs (European Commission, 2009c). Furthermore, increased competitiveness had a positive effect on the quality of products and services. In fact, neither the concerns for the negative impact of enlargement on income nor on migration have confirmed. As the European commission states for migration ‘the relative weight […] is small around 1% or less with the exception of Ireland’ (European Commission 2009b, p. 6). Furthermore, Barrell, FitzGeralnd and Riley (2007, p. 20) reaffirm that ‘the immigration associated with the enlargement of the EU in May 2004 has so far proved modest’. As a result, 58 percent of European citizens confirm that the European internal and external security was improved after Eastern enlargement (European Commission 2009d. p 21). Besides, it can be stated that old European states income improved as a consequence of Eastern enlargement (European Commission, 2009b). Finally, according to the European Commission (2009d, p. 20) the majority of European citizens (62%) believe that Eastern enlargement has contributed positively to the increased levels of prosperity and competitiveness. It is clear that in economic terms Eastern enlargement has positively affected prosperity, development, growth and security for all European citizens, even though; the latter expressed their concerns for the process itself.
In conclusion, this essay has argued that although the citizens of the EU expressed their concerns for the process of Eastern European enlargement, in fact, the latest has played a crucial role for peace, prosperity, stability, competitiveness and growth and it has positively affected the European community. Taken together, these results suggest that the EU is the most fascinating political and economic phenomenon of the contemporary world because by this way or another affects our social behavior and action. As a result, it can be argued that even though many people express their concerns for the process of European enlargement, the EU will continue to expand by incorporating new regions, new cultural elements, new citizens and new states.
Σχόλια