Introduction
Europeanisation may be understood as the development and intensive growth of identity that is specific to the European continent and/or its countries well above other countries and identities within Europe (Bailer et al., 2008).
In addition, with regards to Schneider and Hage (2007 p.312), “Europeanisation may also refer to the process through which European union political and economic dynamics become part of the organisational logic of national politics and policy making”.
Policies such as the agricultural guiding principles seek to boost the production of agricultural products, for instance, milk in all European nations may be considered as good examples of Europeanisation (Riedl 2008). Embracement of the policies means that all nations in Europe are committed to work under regionally integrated policy frameworks.
The main purpose of this essay is to provide a critical and informed understanding of the concepts and processes that are associated between globalisation and Europeanisation. The paper also aims at to evaluate the impact of globalisation and Europeanisation on governments and public policy.
Particular emphasis is placed on the impact of the globalisation and Europeanisation theoretical paradigms on governance, as well as and the development and implementation of public policies, especially in Britain. It is envisioned that, through such analysis and discussion, the extent at which policymaking is being Europeanised within member states of European nations may be determined
This essay is organised into two main sections. In the first section, a discussion pertaining to how practices of globalisation interact with governance and public policy will be addressed.
This will be followed by a critical analysis of how practices of Europeanisation are related to governance and public policy. In the second section, the paper investigates the causes and impacts of Europeanisation and globalisation, in an attempt to demonstrate how they reflect on public policy and governance.
Extents to which Policymaking is being Europeanised in Member States of the European Nations
Over several decades, the European Union has operated as a single trade block. Such operations were facilitated through the deployment of common trade and economic development policies and governance systems (Borzel, 2002; Boerzel, 1999).
An example of this is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is regarded as the first (and for many years, the only) redistributive policy of the European Community (EC) (Bache, George and Bulmer, 2008, p.371).
One of the key goals of globalisation is to spread the best benchmarks of handling problems across the world. In contrast, the concept of Europeanisation as it applied to the enactment of the CAP, was to integrate policies to ensure that all nations in the European nations become self-sufficient for their food supplies.
Thus, among the founding years of the Europeanisation theoretical paradigms for gaining food dependency, agricultural policies yielded success in 1960s.
Bache, George, and Bulmer (2008, p.372) support this assertion by further retaliating, “the success of agriculture sustained the hopes of the advocates of integration during 1960s when it was seen as the start of a process that would lead to other common policies”. Unfortunately, as time progressed, other common policies hardly appeared.
The attempts to Europeanise public policies have had severe implications to the economies of some nations in the European Union. For example, the attempts to deploy common EU policies such as environmental protection and conservation policies impair the productivity of the nations, which do not have the capacity to treat their industrial effluents in a cost effective way compared to organisations operating in the EU.
For a nation, especially in the developing world, to achieve the capacity to respond to the environmental conservations and protection concerns in the degree of the EU, much government expenditure is vital. Similar challenges are also experienced by the EU member states (Borzel 2002).
The question that emerges is how the perspectives of Europeanisation influence the direction taken by respective nations that form the European Union, in terms of public policies and governance approaches.
Globalisation, Public Policy, and Governance
Government actions are executed in a manner that is consistent with the law. This assertion underlines the significance of public policies within governance, which are important to define.
With regards to public policies, Plumper and Schneider (2009, p.67) classify them as “a principled guide to action, taken by the administrative executive branches of the state with regard to a class of issues in a manner that is consistent with law and institutional custom”. Thus, the concept of Europeanisation is an endeavour to instil a custom that binds all EU nations in the approaches of design and implementation of public policies.
At an organisational level, governance refers to “the set of policies, roles, responsibilities, and processes established in an enterprise to guide, direct, and control how the organisation uses technologies to accomplish business goals” (Finkelstein 1995, p.368).
However, in the development of public policies, this term is used to refer to particular actions, such as making decisions, which provide the definition of expectations, mechanisms of according power and even ways of verifying performances (Kooiman & Jentoft 2009; Sorensen 2006).
The effort by the EU in creating integrated policies within various sectors of economies, which are applicable to all the nations that form the EU, is a remarkable measure in ensuring the EU develops collectively through the adoption of effective governance practices.
Development of policies that favour the expansion of local markets to promote free flow of agricultural products exclusively within Europe, has not only developed the EU economy over a number of years, but has also facilitated in shaping the EU to become a large marketing entity with a global feel (Dyson 1999: Howell 2000).
In reality, through globalisation, which is safeguarded by strategies to ensure the EU dominates in the trade at global fronts. The shares of global exports rose by 1.2% in 2006 i.e. 40.8% to 42% (Howell, 2009, p.81). This increase was realised amid hefty concerns over continual growth of China and India’s exportation abilities.
The net impact of governance and policies that foster enhancement of globalisation and Europeanisation amongst EU member states is boosting the economic growth of the EU. The replica for this outcome is the increased earning for European-based companies. The strategy has truncated into increasing employment rates coupled with incomes among workers in the EU (Börzel & Risse, 2003; Radaelli, 2008).
Most significantly, the EU is an enormous advocate for globalisation. It has worked considerably in establishing policies in its favour. Through the enactment of foreign trade policies, in an effort to make all markets across the globe integrated, the EU has managed to establish various relationships with different nations, including those in the developed and the developing world.
Having trade linkage with developing nations has resulted in EU consumers benefiting from lower cost imports, which in turn has aided in reducing inflation and increasing net income (Cowles, Caporaso & Risse 2001, p.23). Nevertheless, it is important to note that the advantages associated with globalisation are a cause for workers in certain industries to suffer immensely.
With Europe at the heart of globalisation, European nations have benefited greatly from the realisation of the merits associated with it Grazino and Vink (2008, p.56) outline that this gain ranges from lower trade barriers, greater opportunities for trade, rapid diffusion of technology to investment.
Arguably, policy reforms that encourage the spirit of globalisation have fostered immense flow of services and goods, people, capital, and even technical know-how between Europe and the rest of the world.
With Europe having been well established industrially, this flow has augmented progress and development at an astounding rate, by virtue of the fact that it is able to take advantage of the economies of scale (the advantages that organisations in a nation gain by being large or by having the capacity to produce many products and service).
Consequently, prior to the previous decade, when in China and other technologically developing nations posed a threat in terms of global distribution of low-cost manufactured products; the EU has been gaining a great deal from its trade global policies.
Such gains include the robust growth of imports, coupled with exports and large investment inflows and outflows (Exadaktylos & Radaelli, 2009). Overall, net inflows in labour have generated modest earnings and income amongst European nationals.
Europeanisation, Public Policy, and Governance
The approach deployed by the EU to realise economic development through engagements and integration of trade with other nations, constitutes an important benchmark that is imitated by many other nations.
For instance, China understands that, although it has well-established links with other developing nations, in terms of supply of manufactured products, it cannot survive without having a strong market presence in the EU and the US because they form a large market that is dominated by middle class people (Kooiman & Jentoft 2009). Middle class people are the highest consumers of industrially mass manufactured products.
Throughout the history of the EU, upon adoption of common range of economic policies favouring industrialisation, the EU considers manufacturing as a major way of raising the GDP of all member states.
As evidenced by the rapid growth of the industrial capacity of China over the last two decades, China also considers manufacturing a noble mechanism of raising its GDP. Consequently, public policies and governance approaches deployed by China are influenced by the EU’s experience with globalisation as a mechanism of raising GDP.
Evidently, this case is an example of theoretical applicability of the concept of Europeanisation. However, the central point of this argument is that some nations make policies, especially those committed to trade growth and development, based on the EU’s ideologies and experiences (Graziano & Vink 2008).
The concept of Europeanisation is not only applicable to incidences where nations consider the experience of the EU (with integrated public policies) to have yielded success. Failures of some policies also form important benchmarks for avoiding the making of policies that would reflect on challenges that have been experienced in the EU.
For instance, the EU embarked on policies that sought to promote milk production by offering subsidies to farmers. This policy was incredibly Europeanised to the extent that all European member states implemented it. While this was a vital strategy in boosting the production of milk products, and hence increasing the level of income to farmers, policies advocating these steps were misplaced (LaBorde 2013).
Based on the implication of the policy, Europeanisation of public policy would ensure that nations in their quest of boosting their agricultural output capacities do not repeat such mistakes. From the EU perspective, subsidies on agricultural products, especially by major global giant producers such as the EU and the US, are not received in good faith within the international arena.
In this context, LaBorde (2013, Para. 5) believes that the reasons behind high global food prices in 2012 (which has been the case for the five years before this), was caused by a succession of weather-related catastrophes, such as severe drought in the US, Europe and Central Asia. Although the EU and the US are well acquitted with this implication, they have refused to heed to these calls.
Rather, they have opted to increase domestic subsidies on agricultural sectors. Such strategies have long-term implications on the worldwide food systems, coupled with impairing food securities in the developing nations (Babcock, 2007; Alston, 2008).
This move is not a welcomed experience; hence, Europeanisation remains important for nations that do not want to take risks, and are not calculated in the development of production policies.
Based on the EU experience, researchers explain that offering subsidies in the agricultural sector results in lowering the costs of production (Westcott & Young 2004: Chapman et al. 2006). In the European Union, in the year 2005, dairy products dealers got a financial assistance amounting to $47 billion.
This amount ($2.20) was actually more than the wages earned on average by each person in the developing nations. This finding means that EU farmers were able to produce their products relatively cheaper to those outside the EU because of government subsidies.
Based on Drabenstott’s (2008) arguments, foreign traders found it difficult to introduce their products into the EU markets because prices of the subsidised products, produced in the EU, were lower than selling price, even for them to break-even.
Such subsidies resulted in stimulation and subsequently an over-production of subsidised agricultural sector products within the EU. However, farmers benefited as they were able to place their surplus products in the market in higher quantities. This means that the consumption of the products also increased.
The disadvantage of such a policy is realised through curtailing the efforts of farmers operating elsewhere outside the EU. It further highlights a need to engage equally in the global trade for milk products, since non-EU farmers’ products were priced higher relative to those produced in the EU countries.
Any nation objecting to such an approach of boosting local production would be borrowing from the EU experience to frame its policies. Put differently, such a nation would be Europeanising its public policies and governance principles.
Causes and Impacts of Globalisation and Europeanisation on Public Policy and Governance
Globalisation is caused by a myriad of factors. Ease of labour mobility is one of such significant cause. The EU nations handle two forms of enhancing labour mobility, which Ahrens et al. (2005, p.220) explain the first one to emanate from the free flow of labour within the borders of countries in the EU.
The EU nations also benefit immensely from the low and high skilled labour that flows into it, particularly those that originate from external borders. One of the central visions of globalisation is to foster interaction of different skill levels for individuals from different nations across the globe.
With this ease of labour mobility across the EU borders, both internally and externally, it implies that the EU establishes this vision and forms a meeting point for all individuals worldwide. However, while permitting this free flow of labour, policies relating to immigrations are a necessity and worth enacting.
Ratifying such policies does not mean that the EU would obtain the very best on offer within the global workforce. A means for sieving the labour flowing into the EU and out of it is critical. It is in this extent that governance becomes important as a facilitating element for globalisation concerning labour mobility.
Aside from labour mobility, other causes of globalisation include the need for organisation information and knowledge sharing, technological transfer and global trade, and other forms of organisational interactions and integrations. For instance, global organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) act as incredible causes of globalisation.
In the operations of such organisations, different stakeholders are integrated often, thus fostering multicultural interactions of individuals from across the world (Bailer et al., 2008).
The single most cause of Europeanisation is the need to incorporate European ideologies of economic success into economic policies of nations using the EU as their benchmark (Parsons, 2002). Among the countries that members of the EU, Europeanisation is caused by the need to develop integrated regional policies that would see the EU develop as a single block.
In the previous section, it was argued that governance approaches and policies encouraging globalisation and Europeanisation have made nations that adopt the EU experiences and ideologies realise incredible developments. However, the benefits of Europeanisation of public policies, especially on matters involving trade integrations, are shared unevenly.
Featherstone and Radaelli (2003, p.59) support this argument by further stating globalisation is regarded as uncertainty and disruption for many Europeans. This argument implies that, while some individuals and organisations profit from globalisation, others have been operating on the losing end.
Directly congruent with the above argument, it is imperative to regard the benefits accrued from Europeanisation and globalisation, framing policy developments based on this ideology, gives rise to benefits that are widespread but also diffuse in various ways.
Indeed, globalisation can have an immense impact on certain communities and organisations, which can be tangible and quite traumatic (Featherstone & Radaelli 2003, p.59).Therefore, globalisation and Europeanisation of some policies would truncate into inflicting and driving economic changes.
In addition, coupled with disruptions on Europe and nations adopting similar ideologies in the development of their polices, it can also have implications on causing real and practical costs to certain members of the society. Such costs and changes have given rise to immense ambivalence in Europe, which is characterised by trade of goods and services, as well as people, technology and capital, (Boerzel 1999, p.574).
Any nation attempting to Europeanise its policies must therefore take into consideration the effects of devising policies that take after the European policies with regards to global integration of nations.
From the perspective of investments, Europeanisation has the implication of expanding global investment flow and ties. This impact is made even clearer by considering Howell’s(2009, p.79) argument, who states that Europe has been the primary supplier and recipient of foreign direct investment since 1990.
Such an immense economic achievement cannot be realised without proper governance through enactment of various policies that enhance the process of economic integrations and interaction between EU and other nations. In fact, this has enabled the EU to build an intensive linkage networks with nations across the globe.
Howell (2009, p.81) argues that between 2000 and 2006, Europe accounted for approximately 64%of global FDI outflows and roughly 50% of global FDI inflows. Consequently, outward FDI stocks possessed by the EU act directly as key boosters of competitive advantage that is gained by organisations in the EU member states through increased profitability.
Since Europeanisation entails spreading and adopting EU ideologies as pertaining to design and implementation of governance principles and specific policies for success, it is arguable that Europeanisation has the impact of making nations globally adopt practices that would yield similar economic merits.
Conclusion
Policies developed by a nation, especially economic policies, are not exempt from the influence of Europeanisation and globalisation. From this theoretical paradigm, this essay argued that policies adopted by various nations, including developing nations, are influenced by the European ideologies and theoretical approaches in design and implementation of public policies.
The essay also held that the principles of globalisation embraced by the EU, which have truncated into the immense success of the EU in terms of growth of GDP, also influence policymaking processes of the EU member states coupled with other nations that are not part of the EU.
These influences were described by the term Europeanisation. From the analytical discussion presented above, this concept has manifested itself globally to the extent that the EU-integrated policies are used as benchmarks.
References
Ahrens, J et al. 2005, ‘Deepening integration in an enlarged EU: a club-theoretical perspective’, Journal of European Integration, vol. 27 no.4, pp. 219-227.
Alston, J 2008, Lessons from Agricultural Policy Reform in Other Countries: The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond, American Enterprise Institute, New York.
Babcock, B 2007, Money for Nothing: Acreage and Price Impacts of U.S. Commodity Policy for Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, Cotton, and Rice in American Enterprise Institute, The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond, AEI Press, Washington, D.C.
Bache, I, George, S, & Bulmer, S 2008, Politics in European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bailer, S et al. 2008, ‘Oligarchisation, formalisation, adaptation? Linking sociological theory and EU enlargement research’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 16 no.1, pp. 162-174.
Boerzel, T 1999, ‘Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to Europeanisation in Germany and Spain’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 37 no.4, pp. 573-596.
Börzel, T & Risse, T 2003, Conceptualising the Domestic Impact of Europe: In K. Featherstone and C Radaelli (eds), The Politics of Europeanisation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Borzel, T 2002, ‘Pace-setting, foot-dragging, and fence-sitting: member state responses to Europeanisation’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 40 no. 2, pp. 193-214.
Chapman, D, Foskett, K, & Clarke, M 2006, ‘How Savvy Growers Can Double, or Triple, Subsidy Dollars’, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, vol. 2 no.1, pp. 121-127.
Cowles, M., Caporaso, J & Risse T 2001, Europeanisation and Domestic Change, Ithaca, New York.
Drabenstott, M 2008, ‘Do Farm Payments Promote Rural Economic Growth?’, The World Economy, vol. 8 no. 1, pp. 57-61.
Dyson, K 1999 ‘EMU as Europeanisation: Convergence, Diversity and Contingency’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 38, no.4 pp 645-66.
Exadaktylos, T & Radaelli, C 2009, ‘Research design in European studies: the case of Europeanisation’ Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 47 no.3, pp. 507-530.
Featherstone, K & Radaelli, C 2003, The Politics of Europeanisation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Finkelstein, L 1995, ‘What is global governance?’, Global Governance, vol. 1 no. 2, pp. 367-372.
Graziano, P & Vink, M 2008, Europeanisation: New Research Agendas, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, London.
Howell, E 2009, Europeanisation, European Integration and Financial Services, Palgrave, London.
Howell, K 2000, Discovering the Limits of European Integration: Applying Grounded Theory, Nova Science Books and Journals, New York.
Kooiman, J & Jentoft, S 2009, ‘Meta-governance: Values, Norms and Principles, and the Making of Hard Choices’, Public Administration, vol. 87 no. 11, pp. 818-836.
LaBorde, D 2013, The hidden cost of US and EU farm subsidies, http://www.ifpri.org/blog/hidden-costs-us-and-eu-farm-subsidies
Parsons, C 2002 ‘Showing ideas as causes? The origins of the European Union’, International Organisation, vol. 56 no. 1, pp. 47-84.
Plumper, T & Schneider, J 2009, ‘The analysis of policy convergence, or: how to chase a black cat in a dark room’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 16 no. 7, pp. 67-75.
Radaelli, C 2008, ‘Europeanisation: solution or problem?’, European integration journal, vol. 8 no. 16, pp. 212-231.
Riedl, B 2008,’ How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers’, European Journal of Economics, vol.3 no.2, pp 315-321.
Schneider, V & Hage, F 2007, ‘Europeanisation and the retreat of the state’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 15 no. 1, pp. 311-317.
Sorensen, E 2006, ‘Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic Governance’, American Review of Public Administration, vol. 36 no. 7, pp. 98-114.
Westcott, P & Young, E 2004, U.S. Farm Program Benefits: Links to Planting Decisions and Agricultural Markets, U.S. Department of Agriculture, New York.