Global Social Policy 2003 Graziano 173 94

Europeanization or Globalization?A Framework for Empirical Research (with some Evidence fromthe Italian Case)

PA O L O G R A Z I A N OCentre for Comparative Political Research, Bocconi University, Italy

abstract Globalization and Europeanization have been increasinglyfashionable terms in the past years. Nevertheless, often their use hasbeen somewhat ‘loose’ and they have been considered as equivalents inexerting external pressures on national welfare states. Moving from thedefinition of the two processes, the article illustrates the differentfeatures of globalization and Europeanization, and provides and testsan analytical framework for the understanding of the institutionaleffects of the processes. In the first part of the article, the two politicalphenomena are defined and an analytical framework based on threedimensions (market orientation, mode of governance and decision-making style) is offered. In the second part, a closer look at the Italiancase is provided. The empirical analysis shows that Europeanizationmight act as an ‘antidote’ to globalization: not only does it promotedifferent policy goals but also it displays institutional effects thatglobalization is not able to determine.

keywords cohesion policy, Europeanization, globalization, Italy, socialpolicy

A RT I C L E 173

Global Social Policy Copyright © 2003SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, ca and New Delhi)

vol. 3(2): 173–194. [1468-0181 (200308) 3:2; 173–194; 034078]

gsp

IntroductionIn order to attempt to compare and to assess the nature of globalization andEuropeanization in European countries, it is important to provide clear andpotentially solid definitions that will enable us to verify on the one hand theadequateness of the concepts used, and on the other the links betweenglobal pressures and domestic policy changes. In general, in the literaturethe political effects of Europeanization and globalization have not been

at National School of Political on April 8, 2015gsp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

www.sagepublications.com

http://gsp.sagepub.com/

distinguished very clearly; furthermore, both the globalization literature (see‘Globalization’ section below) and the Europeanization literature (see‘Europeanization’ section below) have not been in communication verymuch. Also focusing more on the social policy research area, the distinctionbetween the two above-mentioned phenomena has not been very clear.1Therefore, the main aim of this article is to provide an analytical frameworkthat enables a distinction not only between such phenomena but alsobetween the institutional effects of globalization and Europeanization,offering a first empirical test with respect to a specific social policy (cohesionpolicy) in a specific European Union country (Italy).

The article is organized in the following way. In the first part, the twophenomena (globalization and Europeanization) are defined, and the needfor a conceptual clarification is stressed. In the second part, a closer look atthe Italian case is provided, with the attempt to highlight the dimensions ofpolitical globalization and Europeanization. The Italian case shows thatEuropeanization might act as an ‘antidote’ to globalization: it not onlypromotes different policy goals but it also displays institutional effects thatglobalization is not able to determine in the EU member states. Evidencefrom cohesion policy illustrates that Europeanization is contributing tostrengthen the national government vis-a-vis other political institutions(parties and parliament) and frame policies that aim to counter the ‘negativeintegration’ pursued by globalization. In the last part of the article, theimplications of the empirical findings are discussed, the basic argumentbeing that Europeanization operates as a rationalization factor in thosecountries (i.e. the Southern member states of the EU) that have beenlatecomers to building both the nation state and its democratic foundations,while globalization mainly has an indirect effect limiting both the cognitiveand normative orientations of national policy makers.

Definitions and Comparing ConceptsGLOBALIZATIONGlobalization has been used as a ‘buzzword ... reflecting an important if yetpoorly understood reality’ (Rhodes, 2000). It is by now common knowledgethat over the past 25 years the network of trading relations, the globalizationof production (in particular, multinational corporations) and the growth offoreign direct investment (FDI) have grown to unprecedented levels (seeHeld et al., 1999). There has been much debate concerning the apparent orreal novelty of such profound internationalization, as some authors havepointed out that the degree of global economic and financial interactionswas quite similar in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Hirst andThompson, 1996). Nevertheless, if we consider the ‘dimensions’ ofeconomic globalization (‘extensity’, ‘intensity’ and ‘impact’; see Held et al.,

174 Global Social Policy 3(2)



1999: 150–1) it is difficult to disagree with scholars who say that ‘althoughthere exist important continuities with previous phases of globalization,contemporary patterns of globalization constitute a distinctive historicalform which is itself a product of a unique conjucture of social, political,economic and technological forces’ (Held et al., 1999: 429).

For other authors writing in a more sociological perspective, globalizationhas mainly involved a cultural dimension and the work of Robertson (1992),Beck (1997) and Bauman (1998) moves rather in that direction. Robertson(1992) focuses mainly on the cultural influence of the transnationalization ofcommunications and its impact on national societies, individuals, ‘the worldsystem of societies’ and mankind as a whole.2

Much less attention by far has been given to the political dimension ofglobalization. In fact, very few have focused on the internationalization/globalization of politics whereas much attention has been devoted to theinternationalization/globalization of national economies.3 But as MichelleBeyeler has rightly pointed out: ‘Globalization ... clearly involves a political–institutional dimension, which is often hidden behind the economicoutcomes that are measured’ (Beyeler in this issue, p. 159).

In broad terms, political globalization can be seen as a process of‘construction’ on a supranational level and ‘diffusion’ in national politicalsystems of global policies and institutions. It is a quite general but usefuldefinition because it enables one to focus on the politically salient elementsof the even broader process of economic and cultural internationalizationthat often goes under the globalization.

Taking a closer look at the nature and the ‘globalization politics’ withinEurope, it is possible to realize that what is often considered as derivingfrom global political trasformations might very well originate instead fromEuropean political trasformations, which have been increasingly importantover the past two decades.4 In fact, ‘for most European countries, thechanges related to globalization cannot be considered apart from thoserelated to the regionalization represented by European integration’(Schmidt, 1999a: 174). This does not imply that European integration wasstrengthened in order to oppose and confront globalization. In fact, theredoes not seem to be much evidence of a voluntary and acknowledgedacceleration of European integration as a response to globalization; as Rossputs it ‘globalization issues, when present, were usually combined with otherpriorities and concerns’ (Ross, 1998: 174). From a more ‘legal’ perspective,

... europeanization and globalization are both friends and rivals. EU law is anexpression, a means, and an outcome of europeanization. At the same time certainaspects of EU law ... respond to and encourage the development of globaleconomic networks, which are among the basic features of economicglobalization. EU law thus is an integral part of global economic networks. Butthese networks have contradictory effects on the EU ... Europeanization and

Graziano: Europeanization or Globalization? 175



globalization thus are complementary, partly overlapping, mutually reinforcing,but also competing processes. (Snyder, 1999: 59)

Nevertheless, looking at the processes and their political effects, one canrealize that during the 1990s Europeanization has increasingly meant, froma public policy perspective, trying to control and respond to globalization.As Schmidt has pointed out, more recently ‘Europeanization has acted bothas a conduit for global forces and as a shield against them, opening memberstates up to international markets and competition at the same time that theyprotect them through monetary integration and the single market’ (Schmidt,1999a: 172). In other words, the intensification of the political dimension ofthe European integration process has brought European decision makers tointegrate the EU in the world economy (promoting competition andtherefore acting as a facilitator of globalization) but also to design newpolicies (such as cohesion policy and the European Employment Strategy,and therefore acting as an antidote to globalization) aimed at the protectionof what is perceived as a growing European social model.

EUROPEANIZATIONThe debate on Europeanization is much more recent (mid-1990s). Until theearly 1990s scholars focused more on the process of European integration.Even if Anderssen and Eliassen had already talked about ‘europeification’ in1993, it is only in recent years that the national dimension of Europeanintegration and the differences of national,5 and regional,6 responses to thisintegration have been given greater analytical centrality. In this literature,the unit of analysis are not European institutions and the ‘European politicalspace’ but rather European domestic policy and the relationship betweenEU policies and national institutions and policies.

The first definition presenting some empirical orientation has beenprovided by Risse, Cowles and Caporaso (2001). These authors considerEuropeanization as ‘the emergence and development at the European levelof a distinct political system, a set of political institutions that formalizes androutinizes interactions among the actors, and the growth of policy networksspecializing in the creation of authoritative rules’ (Risse et al., 2001: 1). Sucha complex definition is not completely satisfactory. As Radaelli rightly pointsout, ‘policy networks are taken as a matter of faith. [Instead] their existenceand influence is a matter of empirical (not definitional!) analysis’ (Radaelli,2000: 3). Furthermore, there are non-European political institutions that‘formalize and routinize the interactions among actors’; for example,national institutions (for the Italian case, see Ferrera and Gualmini, 1999)play a role. Following the analysis provided by Morlino (1999) and Radaelli(2000), I argue that in order to ‘unpack’ the concept, the dimensions ofEuropeanization need to be stated clearly, as have been the dimensions ofglobalization (Held et al., 1999).




Europeanization, therefore, can be broadly defined as a set of twointertwined processes: the first one is a process through which nationalpolitical, social and economic forces give birth to a new Europeansupranational political and institutional setting; the second one is a processthrough which EU political, social and economic dynamics become anincreasingly important part of the domestic political system. In other (andsimpler) words, Europeanization can be defined as a process of ‘construction’and ‘diffusion’ of European institutions and policies in European countries.

Furthermore, it is important to distinguish the ‘processes’ from their‘effects’. Looking at the effects, and discussing the Europeanization ofcohesion policy in Italy in more detail, I will show that there is a strongpotential for institutional transformation linked to such process, whereasglobalization acts in a much more automatic, uncontrolled and indirectmanner.

For the sake of conceptual clarity, I shall use a comparative framework thatshould provide a better, well-grounded analytical comparison between thetwo processes. The dimensions of comparison, based mainly on secondaryliterature, are the following: ‘market orientation’ (market making vs. marketcorrecting), ‘modes of governance’ (multilevel vs. hierarchical andintergovernmental) and ‘decision-making’ (open/closed). I will discuss thethree dimensions separately. In the next section, I shall test the hypothesisthat such a difference empirically exists with respect to a selected policy area(cohesion policy) and EU member state (Italy).

The Dimensions of ComparisonMARKET ORIENTATIONAs pointed out in the previous paragraphs, Europeanization must not beconfused with European economic integration (Radaelli, 2000).7 Neverthe-less, one should point out the different types of integration which constitutethe core of globalization and Europeanization.8 In the case of globalization,the process involves mainly an example of integration provided by thebuilding of a global market; in fact, due to global constraints, ‘governments[are] pressured to ease restrictions on foreign trade by slashing protectionisttariffs and non-tariff barriers ... Past requirements, such as local equityparticipation, employment creation, capital reinvestment, the use of localresources, or the transfer of technology, [are] replaced by generousincentives to attract foreign capital’ (Gupta, 1997: 4). In fact, ‘the mostimportant components of IMF programs are fiscal and monetary austerityand exchange rate adjustment’ (Pieper and Taylor, 1998: 39). Furthermore,International Monetary Fund (IMF) policy recommendations focus onlabour tax reduction and they do not provide a broader policy context whereincentives and subventions for ‘losers’ are taken into account. In addition,




the World Bank in the 1980s moved ‘alongside the IMF into the business ofproviding balance-of-payments support to countries afflicted by the debtcrisis and falling export prices, adding newly invented “structural adjustmentloans” to its project credits’ (Pieper and Taylor, 1998: 40).9 Also, one of themain explicit goals of the WTO is to ‘help producers of goods and services,exporters, and importers conduct their business’ (WTO, 2000: 1).Therefore, the WTO aims explicitly at lowering tarifs, regardless of settingrules for the social dimension of integration. Consumers’ and socialinterests, moreover, are not even mentioned in the various working papers ofthe WTO.

On the other hand, Europeanization has meant and still means more thanwhat has been described as ‘negative integration’ or ‘market making’.Already in the Preamble to the Treaty of Rome there is a clear statementthat the EC considers social and economic cohesion among its mostimportant goals. The Structural Funds have represented a distinguishedform of relevant positive integration offering consistent financial resourcesaimed at that goal and representing a first step towards the building of asocial dimension of European integration (AA.VV., 2002; Anderson, 1995).Although ‘positive integration’, consisting in redistributive policies and thepromotion of a social dimension in the EU treaties, is very difficult toimplement (Scharpf, 1994), the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty,the Luxembourg Special Council on Employment in 1997 and theStructural Funds strategy within Agenda 2000 pay much more attention tosocio-economic development and to the need to implement socio-economiccohesion: in short, to the correction of market failures. In a recent documentof the Commission it is stressed quite clearly that the EU aims ‘for fullemployment as an objective of economic and social policy with the medium-term target of cutting unemployment to levels in the best-performingcountries’ and that ‘the EU must catch the wind of economic upturn andgenerate substainable growth over a long period. To achieve this the EUmust pursue a systematic policy of modernisation that delivers structuralreforms, accelerates absorption of new technology, improves Europeanresearch, promotes the reform of social welfare, health and pensions, andcreates e-literate workforce whose ideas find faster expression in themarketplace’ (European Commission, 2000b: 1; see also EuropeanCommission, 1997, 1999).

In summary, although there is broadly speaking a ‘growing awareness ofthe need for a social pillar in the global economy’ (ILO, 2000: 1), and thereare signs of such awareness among global institutions (United NationsDevelopment Programme [UNDP], 1999), the primary global institutionsare still mainly focused on a ‘market making’ strategy, whereas there is anincreasing salience of the social dimension through which Europeaninstitutions are confronting global pressures and enhancing the elements ofmarket correction (see also Ferrera et al., 2000).




MODES OF GOVERNANCEThe predominant pattern of governance within the ‘global setting’ isintergovernmental and scarcely institutionalized. Scholars of internationalrelations who have done research on this matter are very clear on this point.As Krasner puts it: ‘the international system is weakly institutionalized’(Krasner, 1999: 49). Furthermore, according to one of the most importantresearch projects on decision-making in international organizations, thelatter could provide ‘only the services that governments would accept, andthe levels were determined by the decisions of a few of the most importantpowerful states’ (Cox and Jacobson, 1973: 434; see also Reinalda andVerbeek, 1998). (A few) national governments are still the main actors of theinternational political arena, although they are not capable of keepinggrowing economic globalization under control (Voronkov, 1995: 1–2). Untilrecently, subnational actors and several ‘weak’ national governments havebeen neglected both in the North and in the South of the world (Adams andGupta, 1997: 12). Moreover, international institutions are quite fragmented,since there is very little coordination among the different institutions such asthe IMF, the World Bank, the OCDE, etc. (Held, 1999: 260, Italiantranslation). Finally, there is no global ‘democratic representation’: in fact,the UN and other international organizations are formed by representativesof national governments who show quite uneven statuses and are not directlyelected by world population (Bourantonis and Weiner, 1995). Therefore,representation is indirect and far from the electorates.

Instead, the recent evolution of EU institutions has made the Europeanpolitical organization more and more similar to what has been termed aEuropolity (Marks et al., 1996), or, a particular political system whereEuropean institutions have started to erode the sovereignty of the nationstate within a multilevel pattern of governance (Hooghe, 1996; Marks, 1992,1993; Marks et al., 1996), giving birth to a system of ‘shared sovereignty’(Wallace, 1999). Although intergovernmentalist bargaining is quiteimportant in Europe (Milward, 1992; Moravcsik, 1998), evidence frompolicy analysis has shown that Europeanization implies an increasing sharingof sovereignty and competencies which takes place in a quasi-federalinstitutional setting where horizontal and vertical networks have beenestablished and more recently reinforced (Kohler-Koch and Eising, 1999;Marks et al., 1996; Töemmel, 1998). Over the past 20 years, decision-makingin Europe has not only been an outcome of a ‘two-level game’ betweensupranational and national actors (Putnam, 1988), but it has also given birthto a multilevel governance system (Hooghe, 1996; Marks, 1992, 1993) wheresubnational actors have begun to play a significant role. Furthermore, recentdocuments of the European Commission – DG Employment and SocialAffairs – are explicitly devoted to the building or consolidation of a localdimension of development and employment (AA.VV., 2002; EuropeanCommission, 2000a); this particular attention to the subnational levels of




governments shows that the EU institutional system takes much more intoconsideration the political preferences of local territories than globalinstitutions such as the IMF, WTO and the World Bank.

DECISION-MAKINGAs Susan Strange pointed out, globalization ‘all too often ... is a politeeuphemism for the continuing Americanisation of consumer tastes andcultural practices’ (Strange, 1996: xiii; see also Latouche, 1996) and thecapacity of governing global transformations democratically is very weak(Held et al., 1999). At the international level, not only are governmentalactors from ‘poor’ countries of minor importance, but also social actors whoare far from being taken into consideration in the decision-making process.WTO decision-making is considered particularly closed and non-transparent not only by anti-globalization activists (see Public Citizen, 1998)but also by member states such as Canada and the EU. In a recent JointStatement on the WTO, the EU and Canada stressed ‘the importance oftransparency inside and outside of the WTO and the need for a dialoguewith individuals and organizations outside of government ... in order toensure its efficient operation, [and] the effective participation by developingcountries’ (EU/Canada Summit, 2000: 1; see also European Commission,2000a).

Turning to how public policies are formulated and implemented at theEuropean level, one sees that the process consists in general of a procedureinvolving many governmental and non-governmental actors, with differentdegrees of influence (see Bomberg, 1998; Moravcsik, 1998). Although, as hasbeen stated above, this does not imply that all actors have similar powers, itdoes imply instead that the decision-making arena is more open, fluid andtransparent than the decision-making arena of global institutions. In fact,exerting influence is much different from ‘playing a role’ within thedecision-making process. Nevertheless, influence has to be built on ‘voice’opportunities provided (although sometimes weakly) by the procedure ofpolicy formulation at the European level, whereas very few actors areinvolved in both policy formulation and implementation within globaldecision-making. Furthermore, at the EU level there are important policiesthat are developed through the negotiations of both horizontal (social actors– governments) and vertical (supranational – national – subnationalgovernments) actors and which involve implementation guarantees of localbureaucracies (an important example which will be discussed in more detailis cohesion policy). On the contrary, within the WTO/General Agreementon Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the IMF and the World Bank – i.e. the ‘globalinstitution’ – decision-making is strongly influenced by few countriesrepresenting specific interests promoting free trade around the globe(Curzon and Curzon, 1973: 330–1; Reinalda and Verbeek, 1998).

But how can we test the hypotheses derived from the previous paragraphs?




Are there in the EU market correcting policies? Is multilevel governancepresent? Is the decision-making mode of governance more open in theEuropeanization process than in the globalization one? Let us test ourhypotheses with respect to cohesion policy in Italy during the 1990s.

Cohesion policy is not a purely European policy: member states had in thepast different ‘social development policies’ that have been challenged by theemerging relevance of European cohesion policy. Such a policy has beenchosen because it shows very well where the (part of) ‘bulk’ of thedifferences between Europeanization and political globalization lays. Theidea is that if we do not find any difference (or only a minor one) in‘redistributive policies’, then the Europeanization vs. globalization argumentwould a fortiori not be sustainable with respect to other policies. Moreover,Italy is a particularly interesting case study since it has performed ‘badly’ in the implementation of EU cohesion policy: the assumption is that if there are pressures from (and institutional answers to) Europeanization in Italy, then it is even more possible that there will be in other memberstates more ‘compliant’ to or in line with EU policy or institutionalconstraints.

Empirical Insights from the 1990s: Europeanization andGlobalization in Italy10

THE ITALIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM IN THE 1990S: THE ROLE OFEXTERNAL PRESSURES FOR CHANGEBroadly speaking, Italy witnessed a great transformation during the 1990sand several scholars have pointed out that Europe has played an importantrole, although not decisive, in this transformation (Di Palma et al., 2000;Ferrera and Gualmini, 1999). The general features of the transformation ofgovernance can be summarized as follows: at the national level, after apolitical ‘earthquake’ (Cotta, 1996) caused by the discovery of mass politicalcorruption, Italy has moved from a centralized party government pattern toa broader multilevel governance system in which new actors at the nationallevel and also at the subnational level have emerged. Within this moregeneral framework, how did the two processes manifest themselves? Whathas been the specific political impact of globalization and Europeanization?

Such questions are impossible to answer in statistical terms by attributingprecise ‘weights’ to different explanatory factors. Nevertheless, it is possibleto capture relevant impulses and to assess their direct or indirect impact onspecific policy domains. I shall focus on cohesion policy, which is the mostimportant policy aimed at socio-economic inclusion. I will illustrate theEuropeanization of socio-economic cohesion policies and its fostering of amultilevel governance system aimed at a positive rather than simply negativeintegration, characterized by an increasingly open decision-making process.




Moreover, I will try to demonstrate the relevance and particularity of such aprocess by contrasting it to the purely normative and cognitive constraintsderived from the globalization political discourse (Schmidt, 1999a), whichhave been relevant within the arena of Italian cohesion policy.

THE GLOBALIZATION OF COHESION POLICYTo capture the relevant dimensions of the ideological forces of globalizationone might, to begin with, simply look at the IMF Staff Country Reports.The Year 2000 Report on Italy states quite clearly the socio-economicpriorities that should be encouraged and sustained by the nationalgovernment. Acknowledging that unemployment must be reduced,especially in the South and among the young (IMF, 2000: 24), the IMF staffalso state that ‘future steps should be targeted at lowering the tax burden onlabor income, with a particular view to easing job market entry’ (IMF, 2000:24). The only way to enhance competitiveness seems, therefore, to be bycutting labour taxes and not by implementing a new corporate income tax orpromoting new forms of sustainable development. As far as the Italian case isconcerned, however, globalization is often invoked as a new ‘vincolo esterno’(even more than Europeanization) which limits the cognitive and normativebehaviour of national decision makers.

Instead, cohesion policies are instrinsically distant from the ‘neoliberalcreed’ (Pieper and Taylor, 1998) fostered by international organizations suchas the IMF, which, as implicitly highlighted in the Annual Country Report,is more interested in the creation of a free market. This does not mean thatcertain aspects of negative integration policies are not relevant to SouthernEuropean Members’ states, which benefit from the rationalization impulsederiving from such policies (Ferrera et al., 2000b). Nevertheless, itdemonstrates how market correcting policies are not promoted by globalinstitutions.

In addition to not containing a market correcting dimension, globalinstitutions are not led by a consolidated and structured executivecomparable to the European Commission. The IMF and the World Bank inparticular are not responsible before an elected body such as the EuropeanCommission is; instead, both institutions are intergovernmental bodieselected by governments.

Finally, the decision-making process of such institutions is closed andfocused exclusively on labour cost and tax reduction reforms. Typical policiespromoted by institutions such as the IMF ‘include cuts in public spending,high interest rates, and credit restraints (especially for the public sector)’(Pieper and Taylor, 1998: 41). The IMF technical staff annually delivers acountry report which is based on the importance of market-friendly policiesand is written by a staff of autonomous experts who are only accountable tothe IMF Board.




THE EUROPEANIZATION OF COHESION POLICYTo a certain extent, cohesion policy is the most important market correctingpolicy implemented at the EU level. First, because it is targeted explicitly atregions that are lagging behind and are in need of financial resources inorder to catch up with other more advanced regions in Europe, and, second,because it redistributes resources to peripheral territories that are havingtrouble with the liberalization and deregulation process (building anincreasingly more free market) taking place in Europe (Marks, 1993).

The objective of social and economic cohesion has already been addressedin the Preamble to the EEC Treaty of Rome, even if the propositions that itspelt out were not immediately met with the adoption of a comprehensivecohesion policy framework.11 It was in the 1970s (and more markedly in the1990s) that the territorial dimension and the weight of European institutionsgained relevance. In regulation 2088/85 – mainly inspired by the Greek andFrench governments – the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (IMP)were brought to life. These programmes represented a clear and decisiveattempt to correct and rationalize European cohesion policy.

The IMP introduced principles (concentration of resources, partnershipamong institutional and societal actors, programming and additionality ofresources), consolidated by successive structural fund reforms, whichpromoted the emergence of a multilevel pattern of governance. In 1988 thispolicy was reinforced by the approval of the first reform of the financialinstruments of cohesion policy, which witnessed a substantial increase infunds allocation. Essentially, within the course of the 1990s the resourcesmade available by the EU have increased significantly, accounting for 35.2percent of the EU’s budget, and absorbing just under 0.5 percent of theaverage GDP of the member states.12

The increase of the funds available for cohesion policy and the imple-mentation of the concentration, partnership, programming and additionalityprinciples contributed to the building of a multilevel system of governancethat differs significantly from the traditional pattern of top-down localdevelopment policies that constituted the Intervento Straordinario per ilMezzogiorno (Extraordinary Intervention for the Southern Italian Regions).13

In fact, since 1975 Italy has been confronted with a new and importantactor in the administration of socio-economic disparities: the EUinstitutions. At a European level, Italy was particularly weak in making hervoice heard in international bargaining.14 In this new European arenanational interests were not well defended. Italy has benefited from EUsubsidies in large part due to the pressure of other member states (Greeceand France first, then Spain and Portugal respectively) interested in theadoption of measures favouring areas considered to be underdeveloped.

Italian indifference influenced the two Structural Funds negotiationrounds at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, whichdemonstrated the scarce attention paid by Italian decision makers to vital




European financial matters. In contrast, the new round for the period2000–06 has shown a strong potential prompted by Treasury Ministry(Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione economica) alreadyduring the policy formulation phase.

First, from a top-down perspective, the Treasury Ministry has underlinedthe centrality of the regions, insisting on one of the cardinal principles of thestructural funds – programming – and founding, alongside nationalhorizontal negotiations, a board for regional horizontal negotiations. Withthe adoption of the new Community Support Framework (CSF) there is aconsistent move towards a ‘regionalization’ of the management of StructuralFunds. During the period 2000–06 more than 70 percent of the totalresources available will be managed by the region compared to less than 50percent in the previous CSF.

Second, there has also been a bottom-up dynamic. The intenseconcertation at both national and regional levels contributed to increasingthe number of social actors involved in the decision-making process,facilitating the formation and promotion of a ‘regional interest’ during theprogramming of EU cohesion policy. Therefore, the Italian government wasoperating in an increasingly open and institutionalized decision-makingenvironment.

THE POLITICAL EFFECTS OF GLOBALIZATION ANDEUROPEANIZATIONI have sought to demonstrate the progressive assertion of a Europeanizationof cohesion policies: the traditional Italian policy of assistance for theMezzogiorno is aligned with an EU policy that has challenged and changedthe national policy. But what are the political effects of the ‘Europeanization’of cohesion policy in Italy? And what has been the role of globalization?

The ‘earthquake’ that rocked the Italian political arena in the early 1990salso affected the policy area under examination. The persistence of wideterritorial differences has favoured the consolidation and spread of anegative evaluation of the entire 40-year span of the Intervento Straordinario.In 1991 a referendum to abrogate it was proposed and, successively, L. 448was adopted in December 1992. In this context of institutional uncertainty,Europe has become an increasingly important political and legislative pointof reference for national and regional governments. Europeanization hashad substantial repercussions on relations between the centre and periphery,between the executive and legislative, on national and regionalbureaucracies, and on patterns of interest representation.

First, with regard to executive and legislative relations, the role of nationalgovernment was increased on all fronts. At this time the Treasury Ministryplays the coordinating role and is the driving force behind cohesion policy,while Parliament, traditionally a key figure for national cohesion policies,has a rather weak controlling function. At a regional level it is still the




Government that exercises key functions. For example, responsibility for EUpolicies in Apulia is under the President of Regional Government (Giunta),while the regional Assembly carries out only a marginal role.

Furthermore, a reorientation of centre–periphery has taken place, themost substantial effect being the increased resources available to regionalgovernment institutions. With the new programming for the period2000–2006 in particular – in which centre–periphery negotiation was quiteintense – the regions will have the exclusive management of 70 percent ofthe total resources allocated to Italy at their disposal, whereas, for the othertwo CSF periods, they had managed less than 50 percent of the availablebudget. Moreover, the tools of the negotiated programming anticipate anincrease in territorial centralization and in the power of regional (and to acertain extent sub-regional) governments. Such expansions, whichcontextually involve the ‘transfer of authority’ to the ‘transfer of resources’,are even more relevant seen in the light of other forms of jurisdictional (butnot resource) decentralization anticipated by some recent legislativeprovisions.

The effects of Europeanization have also been significant on bureaucracy.It is necessary to pause, above all, on the bureaucratic machinery in order tounderstand the amount of change triggered by the implementation of EUcohesion policy. Over the past years, to meet the challenge of the newprocedures introduced by the Community bureaucracy,15 a process ofrationalization has been put in motion that continues to affect a deep changeon the nature of administration in national and regional bureaucracies. Sucha process implies a progressive independence of the bureaucratic machinefrom political parties and an adherence to the regulatory principles that limitthe discretionary powers and steer administrative behaviour towards aproblem-solving approach. Such rationalization occurred (and still occurs) atthe centre while it is often determined by an incentive derived from thecentre when it occurs at the periphery.

Finally, interest representation has been strongly influenced byEuropeanization. At a national level the influence of the parties has been oneof the reasons for the progressive clientelististic degeneration of theIntervento Straordinario. On the other hand, EU decision-making has alwaysbeen less open to party influence concerning national policy-making. At aregional level the tools of the negotiated programming and EU programmeshave widened the circle of the interests taken into account during thepreparatory phases, including players who were not previously on the sceneat a regional level (e.g. minor business associations and representatives ofThird Sector associations). In this new context, regional governmentinstitutions take on a central role as coordinators and as a driving forcemainly controlled by social actors and, in a much diluted role with respect tothe past, political parties.

In contrast, the political effects of globalization for cohesion policy in the




Italian case have not been very relevant. In general, the political effects ofglobalization on socio-economic policies and institutions have been lessrelevant than those provoked by European integration (Ferrera andGualmini, 1999: 60–74). From an institutionalist perspective, in the area ofcohesion policy globalization seems to have manifested itself as a politicaldiscourse (Schmidt, 1999b) constraint, affecting both domestic and Europeanpolicy-making by limiting the possible policy options, but has not actedmuch as a motor for domestic institutional and policy change. It has, of course,modified the investment preferences of some investors, whose interest areno longer anchored to the national economic interest, but such changes havebeen filtered or made possible primarily by European institutions andpolicies.16 In particular, the development of cohesion policy in Italy showsthat globalization has not been able to avoid the continuation of marketcorrecting policies in EU member states, and that the strengthening, withrespect to cohesion policy, of both the executive and bureacracy in Italy cannot be considered as an effect of globalization. In other words, whereasEuropeanization has had a strong direct impact on the development ofcohesion policy, globalization has played a weaker indirect role that wassomewhat contrasted by Europeanization itself.

Globalization or Europeanization? Some Lessons from theItalian CaseOver the past years, after the failure of the ‘Structural Adjustment’ paradigmof the 1980s (Pieper and Taylor, 1998), global institutions have also begun tochange towards a more bottom-up approach to development (see WorldBank, 2002). At the same time, Europeanization, until the end of the 1990s,has also meant a build-up to the EMU and, therefore, the setting andimplementing of harsh budget deficit reducing policies, sharing commonfeatures with the call for sound budget policies promoted by ‘globalinstitutions’. Therefore, are Europeanization and political globalizationprocesses becoming increasingly alike?

It would be rash to draw conclusions in the case of Italy on the basis of asingle area of policy study, however significant it may be, since the majorityof cohesion policy actors are involved in horizontal and vertical negotiations,and the policy concerns the development of the territory as a whole and notjust of specific sectors, thus representing an emblematic case of policy aimedat market correction. That notwithstanding, the above analysis provides amore general reflection of the transformation of Italian governanceparticularly in the social and economic policy sectors.17

In the first place, along with a consolidated influence of EU law, theEuropeanization of national policies has recently, over and beyond cohesionpolicy, reached other policy domains (for example monetary and labour




policies). After 1992 this process accelerated, following the consolidation ofpolicy learning processes derived from the innovation of EU policies. Suchan acceleration confirms that the intensity of Europeanization varies on thebasis of the previous ‘paths’ followed by its member countries: the greaterthe discrepancy between EU and consolidated national policies (the so-called ‘goodness of fit’: see Risse et al., 2001), the greater the necessarytimespan in order to adapt the national policy setting to EU requirements.

Furthermore, Europeanization seems to lead to a restructuring ofcentre–periphery relations in a manner that is more favourable to theperiphery than before. Naturally, this does not imply that such centralgovernment institutions are ‘obsolete’ and excessively weakened by thestrengthening of regional governments. Rather, it seems that there is aninduced redefinition of the role of national government led by thegovernment itself, which takes place in a context where processes areoccuring on which the national government exercises an almost irrelevant(globalization) or reduced influence (Europeanization). Such processesreduce the traditional sovereignity of western governments entailing agreater distribution of power among the various government institutionsand a widening of the number of actors that have access to the decision-making process, thus giving birth to what has been defined as ‘multilevelgovernance’. Nevertheless, since national government has the most difficultyin controlling the economy for exogenous reasons, the sharing of itsweakness is a demonstration of its strength: the government decides todecentralize responsibility and authority knowing very well that in the newworld economy the state-driven methods of intervention would prove oflittle use. Europeanization therefore is not in itself automatically effective; itis the behaviour of national government that makes Europeanization display,or not display, all its effects.

Finally, the concept of Europeanization shows a remarkable descriptivevalidity enabling us to better understand the interaction between EU andnational governments. The recent reorientation of European studiestowards policy analysis can be seen as favourable for its characteristicallystrong empirical component. Nevertheless, a large amount of information iscurrently available on how community policies are enacted on a Europeanlevel, but less is known about the specific patterns of the preferenceformation of national and regional governments and the implementation ofEU policies in member states. To gain a better understanding of EU policy-making in its entirety it is necessary to examine the member states moreclosely and to empirically analyse, on the one hand, the results of European-ization and, on the other hand, the links between national governance andsupranational governance in order to also capture the patterns of policylearning and policy feedback processes. This is certainly not an easy task butit is a necessary one in order to acknowledge not only the impact of Europeon its member states but also the evolution of EU integration.




The political effects that have been discussed might also somehow beinfluenced by globalization pressures, but the argument developed in thisarticle demonstrates that all possible pressures are filtered and accompaniedby other policies at the European level, which are trying to incorporate theconstraints and opportunities of an increasingly open world within the so-called European social model. In the next few years we will see if there arechances (quite weak for the moment) for a ‘Europeanization of globalization’thanks to the creation of a more or less homogeneous European socialmodel which might become a model for other countries, or set of countries,or if Europeanization will refer only to a defensive strategy undertaken byEuropean countries trying to protect and consolidate national or a Europeansocial model(s) in an increasingly integrated world.

acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the participants to the COST A15 – WG1 meeting inFlorence (11–12 October 2002), where a longer version of this article was presented,for useful suggestions. I owe special debts to Eero Carroll, Maurizio Ferrera, NickManning and Bruno Palier for their very useful comments and suggestions.

notes

1. For a partial exception, see Hay et al. (1999); Scharpf and Schmidt (2000).2. In fact, these authors do not provide a definition based on clear criteria; they

conceptualize rather broadly the phenomenon of globalization.3. Among few other exceptions we find Held et al., 1999; Keohane and Milner, 1996.4. This article considers the institutional implications of both political globalization

and Europeanization, leaving aside the economic consequences that are assessed– with a large degree of uncertainty – by economists (for the Italian case, BarbaNavaretti, 1999; Faini et al., 1999; Milone, 1999). For a similar ‘institutionalist’perspective on globalization and its impact on European welfare states see Hay etal., 1999.

5. Anderssen and Eliassen, 1993; Bulmer, 1983; Ladrech, 1994; Mény et al., 1996;Olsen, 1995; Radaelli, 1997; Risse et al., 2001; Schmidt, 1999a, 1999b; Wallace,1996.

6. Conzelmann, 1998; Hooghe, 1996; Jeffery, 1997; Keating and Hooghe, 1996;Keating and Jones, 1995; Le Galès and Lequesne, 1997.

7. As Beyeler points put in her contribution to this issue, both economic (‘market’)integration and political integration are part of Europeanization. In other words,Europeanization includes economic integration but it is more than economicintegration.

8. Radaelli rightly points out that ‘Europeanization would not exist without Euro-pean integration’ (Radaelli, 2000: 6), implying, therefore, that such integration isa prerequisite (or part) of Europeanization.

9. Only more recently the World Bank has gone back to its initial goals: povertyalleviation and (micro)credit measures (World Bank, 2002).

10. The research was carried out in a three-year period and regarded both the




national and the subnational dimension. About 60 interviews with topbureaucrats and governmental representatives were performed.

11. For more detailed accounts see Armstrong (1995); Pollack (1995); Staeck (1996).12. For the data see European Commission (1998: 34).13. For further details see Graziano (2003).14. See Ferrera (1991); Giuliani (1992).15. See Franchini (1993) and Dente (1999: 123–4).16. In a research project on ‘Social Integration in Europe’, interviews have shown

that national and local elites perceive the constraints of globalization as not asrelevant as the opportunities and constraints posed by European institutions andpolicies. No global actor enters into their day-to-day political life. For thepreliminary findings of this research, see Ferrera et al., 2000a.

17. For similar conclusions regarding the scarce influence of internationalorganizations (such as OECD) and the relevance of European institutions on thereform of Italian welfare, see Bertozzi and Graziano in Armingeon and Beyeler(2003).

references

AA.VV. (2002) The Future of Cohesion Policy: Conference Proceedings. Brussels:European Commission.

Adams, F. and Gupta, S.D. (1997) ‘The Political Economy of Globalization: AnIntroduction’, in S.D. Gupta (ed.) The Political Economy of Globalization (pp. 1–12).Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Anderssen, S.S. and Eliassen, K.A. (eds) (1993) Making Policy in Europe: TheEuropeification of National Policy-making. London: Sage.

Anderson, J.J. (1995) ‘Structural Funds and the Social Dimension of EU Policy:Springboard or Stumbling Block?’, in S. Leibfried and P. Pierson (eds) EuropeanSocial Policy: Between Fragmentation and Integration (pp. 123–58). Washington, DC:Brookings.

Armingeon, K. and Beyeler, M. (eds) (2003) OECD and Welfare States Reforms inEurope. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Armstrong, H. (1995) ‘The Role and Evolution of European Community RegionalPolicy’, in M. Keating and B. Jones (eds) The European Union and the Regions (pp.23–62). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Barba Navaretti, G. (1999) ‘Is the Suspect Guilty? Labour Market Effects of TradeLiberalisation in Textile’, Working paper prepared for Centro Studi Confindustriaand for the Centre for European Policy Studies, Ancona University.

Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization: The Human Consequences. London: Polity Press.Beck, U. (1997) Was is Globalisierung? [What is Globalization?]. Frankfurt Am Main:

Suhrkamp Verlag.Bertozzi, F. and Graziano, P. (2003) ‘The Impact of OECD Guidelines on Italian

Welfare State Reforms’, in K. Armingeon and M. Beyeler (eds) OECD and WelfareStates Reforms in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Bomberg, E. (1998) ‘Issue Network and the Environment: Explaining EuropeanUnion Environmental Policy’, in D. Marsh (ed.) Comparing Policy Networks (pp.167–83). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bourantonis, D. and Weiner, J. (eds) (1995) The United Nations in the New WorldOrder. London: Macmillan.




Bulmer, S. (1983) ‘Domestic Politics and European Community Policy-making’,Journal of Common Market Studies 21(3): 49–63.

Conzelmann, T. (1998) ‘“Europeanization” of Regional Development Policies?Linking the Multi-level Governance Approach with Theories of Policy Learningand Policy Change’, European Integration online Papers 2(4), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1998-004a.htm

Cotta, M. (1996) ‘La Crisi del Governo di Partito all’Italiana’, in M. Cotta and P.Isernia (eds) Il Gigante dai Piedi d’Argilla [The Giant with Clay Feet] (pp. 11–52).Bologna: Il Mulino.

Curzon, G. and Curzon, V. (1973) ‘GATT: Traders’ Club’, in Cox, R.W. andJacobson, H.K. (eds) The Anatomy of Influence: Decision Making in InternationalOrganization (pp. 298–333). Yale, CT: Yale University Press.

Dente, B. (1999) In un diverso stato [In a Different State]. Bologna: Il Mulino.Di Palma, G., Fabbrini, S. and Freddi, G. (eds) (2000) Condannata al Successo?

[Condemned to Success]. Bologna: Il Mulino.European Commission (1997) Communication on ‘The Social and Labour Market

Dimension of the Information Society’. Brussels: European Commission.European Commission (1998) The Community Budget: The Facts in Figures,

Luxembourg. Brussels: European Commission.European Commission (1999) The European Employment Strategy. Brussels: European

Commission.European Commission (2000a) The EU Approach the Millennium Round. Brussels:

European Commission.European Commission (2000b) ‘Commission’s Work Programme for 2000 and the

Strategic Objectives for 2000–2005’, Press release. Brussels: EuropeanCommission.

EU/Canada Summit (2000) ‘Conclusions’, Working document, Geneva.Faini, R., Falzoni, A.M., Galeotti, R., Helg, R. and Turrini, A. (1999) ‘Importing Jobs

or Exporting Firms? On the Wage and Employment Implications of ItalianTradeand Foreign Direct Investment Flows’, Giornale degli Economisti 58(1): 95–135.

Ferrera, M. (ed.) (1991) Le dodici Europe. I Paesi della Comunità di fronte ai combiamentidel 1989–1990 [Twelve Europes. The Members of the EC Community and the PoliticalChanges in 1989–1990]. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Ferrera, M. and Gualmini, E. (1999) Salvati dall’Europa? [Rescued from Without?].Bologna: Il Mulino.

Ferrera, M., Gualmini, E., Graziano, P. and Alti, T. (2000a) ‘Labour MarketGovernance: the Experience of the Italian Region in the 1990s’, Working Paper No.27. Quaderni di Ricerca Poleis – Università Bocconi, Milano.

Ferera, M. Hemerijck, A.C. and Rhodes, M. (2000b) The Future of Social Europe:Recasting Work and Welfare in the New Economy. Lisbon: Celta.

Franchini, C. (1993) Amministrazione italiana e amministrazione comunitaria: lacoamministrazione nei settori di enteresse comunitario [Italian and CommunityAdministrations: Coadministration in the Sectors Relevant for the EC]. Padova:CEDAM.

Giuliani, M. (1992) ‘Il Processo Decisionale Italiano e le Politiche Comunitarie’[Italian Decision-Making and EC Policies], POLIS 6(2): 307–42.

Graziano, P. (2003) ‘La Nuova Politica Regionale Italiana. Il Ruolo dell’Europeiz-zazione’ [The Europeanization of Public Policies in Italy: Cohesion and LabourPolicies in Comparison], in S. Fabbrini (ed.) L’Europeizzazione dell’Italia. Bologna:Il Mulino.




Gupta, S.D. (ed.) (1997) The Political Economy of Globalization. Boston, MA: Kluwer.Hay, V., Watson, M. and Wincott, D. (1999) ‘Globalization, European Integration

and the Persistence of European Social Models’, Working Paper 3/99, University ofSussex.

Held, D. (1996) Democracy and the Global Order. Stanford, CT: Stanford UniversityPress.

Held, D. (1999) Democrazia e ordine globale. Trieste: Asterios.Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations.

Cambridge: Polity Press.Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1996) Globalization in Question. Cambridge: Polity.Hooghe, L. (1996) ‘Building a Europe with the Regions: The Changing Role of the

European Commission’, in L. Hooghe (ed.) Cohesion Policy and European Integration(pp. 89–126). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ILO (2000) Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on FundamentalPrinciples and Rights at Work: Your Voice at Work. Geneva: International LabourOffice.

IMF (2000) Italy: Staff Report for the 2000 Article IV Consultation. Washington, DC:IMF.

Jeffery, J. (eds) (1997) The Regional Dimension of the European Union. London: FrankCass.

Keating, M. and Hooghe, L. (1996) ‘By-passing the Nation-state? Regions and theEU Policy Process’, in J. Richardson (ed.) European Union. Power and Policy-making(pp. 216–29). London and New York: Routledge.

Keating, M. and Jones, B. (eds) (1995) The European Union and the Regions. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Keohane, R. and Milner, H. (eds) (1996) Internationalization and Domestic Politics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R. (eds) (1999) The Transformation of Governance in theEuropean Union. London: Routledge.

Krasner, S. (1999) ‘Globalization and Sovereignty’, in D.A. Smith, D.J. Solinger andS.V. Topik (eds) States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (pp. 34–52). Londonand New York: Routledge.

Ladrech, R. (1994) ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Caseof France’, Journal of Common Market Studies 32(1): 69–88.

Latouche, S. (1996) The Westernization of the World. Cambridge: Polity Press.Le Galès, P. and Lequesne, C. (eds) (1997) Les Paradoxes des Régions en Europe [The

Paradoxes of Regions in Europe]. Paris: La Découverte.Marks, G. (1992) ‘Structural Policy in the European Community’, in A. Sbragia (ed.)

Europolitics (pp. 191–224). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Marks, G. (1993) ‘Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC’, in A.

Cafruny and G. Rosenthal (eds) The State of the European Community, Vol. 2 (pp.391–410). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Marks, G., Scharpf, F., Schmitter, P. and Streeck, W. (eds) (1996) Governance in theEuropean Union. London: Sage.

Mény, Y., Muller, P. and Quermonne, J.L. (eds) (1996) Adjusting to Europe: The Impact of the European Union on National Institutions and Policies. London:Routledge.

Milone, L.M. (1999) ‘Globalizzazione, Localizzazione delle Attività Produttive eDistribuzione del Reddito nei Paesi Avanzati: Uno Sguardo d’Insieme’[Globalization, Production Localization and Income Distribution in Advanced




Countries: an Overview], in F.R. Pizzuti (ed.) Globalizzazione, Istituzioni e CoesioneSociale [Globalization, Institutions, Social Cohesion] (pp. 47–56). Rome: Donzelli.

Milward, A.S. (1992) The European Rescue of the Nation-state. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Moravcsik, A. (1998) A Choice for Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Morlino, L. (1999) ‘Europeanization and Representation in Two Europes’, paper

presented to the Conference ‘A la Récherche de l’Europe Méridionale’, PoleUniversitaire Européen de Montpellier et du Languedoc-Roussillon, CNRS etCEPEL, Montpellier, 27–9 May.

Olsen, J.P. (1995) European Challenges to the Nation-state. Oslo: ARENA.Pieper, U. and Taylor, L. (1998) The Revival of the Liberal Creed: The IMF, the

World Bank, and Inequality in a Globalized Economy’, in D. Baker, G. Epsteinand R. Pollin (eds) Globalization and Progressive Economic Policy (pp. 37–63).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pollack, M. (1995) ‘Regional Actors in an Intergovernmental Play: The Making and Implementation of EC Structural Policy’, in C. Rhodes and S. Mazey (eds) The State of the European Union, Vol. 3 (pp. 361–90). Boulder, CO: LynneRienner.

Public Citizen (1998) Whose WTO? Washington, DC: Public Citizen Publications.Putnam, R. (1988) ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level

Games’, International Organization 42(1): 25–45.Radaelli, C. (1997) The Politics of Corporate Taxation in the European Union: Knowledge

and International Policy Agendas. London: Routledge.Radaelli, C. (2000) ‘Wither Europeanization? Concept Stretching and Substantive

Change’, European Integration online Papers (EioP) 4, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-008a.htm

Reinalda, B. and Verbeek, B. (eds) (1998) Autonomous Policy Making by InternationalOrganizations. London and New York: Routledge.

Rhodes, M. (2000) ‘Globalization, Welfare States and Employment: Is There aEuropean “Third Way”?’, in N. Bermeo (ed.) Unemployment in the New Europe.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Risse, T., Caporaso, J. and Cowles, G. (2001) ‘Transforming Europe’, in T. Risse, M.Cowes and J. Caporaso (eds) Transforming Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress.

Robertson, R. (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage.Ross, G. (1998) ‘European Integration and Globalization’, in R. Axtmann (ed.)

Globalization and Europe. London: Pinter.Scharpf, F. (1994) ‘Community and Autonomy: Multi-level Policy-making in the

EU’, Journal of European Public Policy 1(2): 219–42.Scharpf, F. and Schmidt, V. (eds) (2000) Welfare and Work in the Open Economy.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Schmidt, V.A. (1999a) ‘Convergent Pressures, Divergent Responses: France, Great

Britain, and Germany between Globalization and Europeanization’, in D.A.Smith, D.J. Solinger and S.V. Topik (eds) States and Sovereignty in the GlobalEconomy (pp. 172–92). London and New York: Routledge.

Schmidt, V.A. (1999b) ‘The EU and its Member States: Institutional Constraints andtheir Consequences’, paper presented to the Meeting on ‘Rethinking Federalismin the EU and US: The Challenge of Legitimacy’, Kennedy School ofGovernment, Harvard University Press, 19–20 April.




Snyder, F. (1999) ‘Globalization and Europeanization as Friends and Rivals:European Union Law in Global Economic Networks’, European University InstituteWorking Paper 99/8, Florence.

Strange, S. (1996) The Retreat of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Töemmel, I. (1998) ‘Transformation of Governance: The European Commission’s

Strategy for Creating a “Europe of the Regions”’, Regional & Federal Studies 8(2):52–80.

UNDP (1999) 10th Report on Human Development. New York: UNDP.Voronkov, L. (1995) ‘International Peace and Security: New Challenges to the UN’,

in D. Bourantonis and J. Wiener (eds) The United Nations in the New World Order(pp. 1–18). London: Macmillan.

Wallace, W. (1996) ‘Government without Statehood: The Unstable Equilibrium’, inH. Wallace and W. Wallace (eds) Policy-making in the European Union (pp. 439–60).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wallace, W. (1999) ‘The Sharing of Sovereignty: The European Paradox’, PoliticalStudies 47: 503–21.

Weiner, J. (1995) ‘Leadership, the United Nations, and the New World Order’, in D.Bourantonis and J. Weiner (eds) The United Nations in the New World Order (pp.41–63). London: Macmillan.

World Bank (2002) Globalization, Growth, and Poverty: Building an Inclusive WorldEconomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WTO (2000) Trading into the Future. Geneva: WTO.

résumé

L’Européanisation ou la Globalisation? Une Structure pour lesRecherches Empiriques (avec de l’évidence de l’Exemple Italien)L’européanisation et la globalisation sont des termes qui sont, depuis quelquesannées, de plus en plus à la mode. Néanmoins, l’emploi de ces termes a souvent étéde manière approximative et on les a considérés comme équivalents en termesd’exercer les pressions externes sur les États providence nationaux. Après avoir définiles deux processus, l’article illustre les différents éléments de la globalisation et del’européanisation et donne et met à l’épreuve une structure analytique pour lacompréhension des effets institutionnels des processus. Dans la première partie del’article, on définit les deux phénomènes politiques et on propose une structureanalytique basée sur trois dimensions (l’orientation du marché, la mode degouvernement, et le style de prendre les décisions). Dans la deuxième partie, onfournit une étude plus en détail de l’exemple italien. L’analyse empirique montre quel’européanisation peut agir comme ‘antidote’ à la globalisation: cela ne promeut passeulement des différents buts de politique, mais cela montre également les effetsinstitutionnels que la globalisation ne peut pas déterminer.




resumen

¿Europeización vs. Globalización? Un Marco de InvestigaciónEmpírica (con Algunas Muestras del Caso Italiano)La globalización y la europeización se han convertido en términos en boga en losúltimos años. Sin embargo, a menudo son utilizados sin rigor, considerándolos comoequivalentes en el ejercicio de presión externa sobre los estados de bienestarnacionales. Tras definir ambos procesos, el artículo ilustra los diferentes rasgos de laglobalización y la europeización, brinda y pone a prueba un marco analítico paracomprender los efectos institucionales del proceso. En la primera parte del artículo,se define los dos fenómenos políticos y se ofrece un marco analítico basado en tresdimensiones (orientación del mercado, modo de administración y estilo de toma dedecisiones). En la segunda parte, se revisa con mayor detalle el caso italiano. Elanálisis empírico muestra que la europeización podría actuar como un ‘antídoto’ parala globalización, ya que no sólo promueve políticas diferentes sino que tambiénmuestra efectos institucionales que la globalización no puede determinar.

biographical note

PAOLO GRAZIANO, PhD in Political Science at the University of Florence, currentlyteaches Political Science at Bocconi University of Milano. He has recently published‘The Impact of OECD Guidelines on Italian Welfare State Reforms’ (with F.Bertozzi) in the book edited by K. Armingeon and M. Beyeler, OECD and WelfareState Reforms in Europe. He is also working on a volume for the Italian publisher IlMulino dedicated to ‘The Europeanization of Italian Public Policies: the case ofCohesion and Labour Policies’. ADDRESS: Centro Poleis, Istituto di EconomiaPolitica, Università Bocconi, V. Sarfatti, 25, 20136 Milano, Italy. [email:[email protected]]




Global Social Policy 2003 Graziano 173 94

Documents

Transcript of Global Social Policy 2003 Graziano 173 94