Interaction between Europeanisation and Globalisation
We can conclude that
both Globalisation and Europeanisation are processes, both constitute a
tentative to get over the logic of traditional trade inter-state and they aim to
expand trade and spread the market model of economy.
and Europeanisation are here presented as common convergence processes, it is
clear that their strategic deployment and their connotation remain strikingly
different in different domestic and external settings. As a metter of fact they
don’t belong to same scale, the Europeanisation remains a regional project
while Globalisation seeks wider area of influence. Thus we detect interaction
between Globalisation and Europeanisation, dialectical interaction.
Globalisation and europeanisation are complementary, partly overlapping,
mutually reinforcing, but also competing processes.
They are both friends and rivals.
and Globalisation embody specific logic of development, aiming to achieve
modernity, prosperity, democracy and better social conditions. Even though
targeting the same ultimate objective they are still following different styles.
At this level, this paper adopts two different approaches. First a comparative
approach which will bring to light the convergence and the dissimilarities
between the two processes. Second, an analytic approach dealing with ways of
interaction between the two courses.
target but different styles
On one hand
Globalisation is offering a “toolbox” to be used to achieve modernity. On
the other hand Europeanisation is more progressive, and it’s well founded on
cooperation and partnership.
toolbox of Modernity:
There is today a
universal vision of economic success. It embodies the idea that economic growth
is a linear process that can be followed unless the economies apply the
principles considered to be the only way to realise “it”.
These principles are:
an economic adjustment
more flexibility to the economic system
the use of natural resources
or reinforcing a social network
To these principles
correspond instrument of action. The main principal means are fewer prerogatives
of the nation-state and the development of the private sector.
The principal actors and players contributing in the implementation of this
model of development are:
1.The World Trade
The WTO argues that the growth of trade between countries increases the wealth
of everyone. Trade allows the production of goods and services by those who are
most efficient, thus maximising their availability at the best price. The
lowering of barriers, such as tariffs and import quotas, helps the growth of
trade, which is the object of WTO agreements.
Monetary Fund (IMF) was established in the wake of the World War II in 1946 to
international cooperation on finance,
stability in exchange rates and orderly systems for exchanging money between
temporary assistance for countries suffering balance of payments problems
The IMF frequently
seeks institutional reform in the countries to which it provides temporary
financial assistance. Like the WTO, the IMF believes that world prosperity is
enhanced by greater exchange between nations and that this is made possible by
everyone agreeing to abide by rules[ii].
3. The World Bank
provides loans to poor countries for development projects. The bank provides
loans for investment projects, such as water and sanitation, natural resource
management education and health. It also lends for what it calls adjustment
projects, which are to support governments undertaking policy reforms, such as
improved public sector management.
model of development offered by the European Union
On the contrary of
the previous model, the EU has developed a model of development
incarnating simultaneously by an economical logic and a political logic.
The cooperation of the EU with third countries and regions protracted the
principles that the EU applies to itself.
historical-institutional perspective, the structure of the EU finds it’s roots
in the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), the so-called
‘Helsinki Process’ inaugurated in the early 1970s. It has proved a
successful model for the promotion of peaceful transition in Europe. The
structural model of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act based on the incorporation of
distinct, yet interrelated pillars or baskets - dealing with political and
security issues, economic and financial matters, as well as with human and
cultural issues - becomes a very useful tool in ascertaining possible elements
of compatibility or indeed institutional and policy differentiation. We may
conclude that the basket-based arrangements of European processes are a means of
overcoming potentially significant obstacles toward substantive regional
Thus the structure of
the European Union encompasses 3 pillars, pillar 1 the European Community,
pillar 2, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and Pillar 3,Justice and Home
Affairs. The European Community policy areas are varied, to include trade and
competition policy, but also issues such as the now developing public health
policy, Economic and Social Cohesion, Social Policy and the Environment.
The project of
development offered by the EU is various and global. This Europeanised model is
carried out through EU institutions and through the implementation of the
“aquis communautaire”. The entire body of European laws is known as the
“acquis communautaire”. This includes all the treaties, regulations and
directives passed by the European institutions as well as judgements laid down
by the Court of Justice. It means that EU member states must adopt, implement
and enforce all the “acquis” on the national scale. As well as changing
national laws, this often means they must set up or change the necessary
administrative or judicial bodies, which oversee the legislation.
The term of
“aquis” is most often used in connection with preparations by the 12
candidate countries to join the union. But It is getting embodied in the
association agreements signed with third countries. It means that they should
adopt, implement and enforce all the “acquis”. Accordingly, the
europeanisation is a projection processes, trying to export the EU model of
modernity at least in the area of it’s influence.
Don’t we detect on this account a global ambition of the europeanisation,
would it clash with the process of globalisation, even though the objectives are
II-Ways of interaction between
Globalisation and europeanisation
europeanisation are complementary, partly overlapping, mutually reinforcing, but
also competing processes. The complexity of this interaction is due to two
-There is convergence
between the two processes as far as their long term targets are considered
-There is tension between the decision making
process in the EU structure and its correspondent in the Global arena (i.e. the
as external economic constraint
integration can be seen as a distinct west European effort to contain the
consequences of globalization. Rather than be forced to choose between the
national polity for developing policies and the relative anarchy of the globe,
west Europeans invented a form of regional governance with polity-like features
to extend the state and harden the boundary between themselves and the rest of
challenges posed by globalisation combined with the manifest inadequacies of the
state to deliver in the face of external economic challenges are fundamental
stimuli for supranational polity building.
opening paragraph of the Presidential Conclusions to the Lisbon Special European
Council of March 2000 reads:
“The European Union
is confronted with a quantum shift resulting from globalisation and the
challenges of a new knowledge-driven economy. These challenges are affecting
every aspect of people’s lives and require a radical transformation of the
European economy” (Presidential Conclusions, Lisbon Special European Council,
23/4 March,). The purchase of this particular discourse of globalisation would
In short, integration
may be a way in which public authorities can recapture their capacity to
exercise some autonomy in the face of rampant globalisation.
as a desirable yet doubtful outcome
The second approach
regards European integration as a stepping-stone to global liberalisation
/integration. This has internal and external dimensions.
Internally it describes the tendency of the EU to act as the vehicle for
the spread of neoliberal policy norms throughout Europe.
Externally it imagines the EU to be a project of ‘open regionalism’
that uses its own internal trade liberalisation as a stepping-stone for
liberalisation on a global scale. A similar orientation towards globalisation is
apparent in the approach taken by successive European Commissioners for trade.
Both Pascal Lamy and his predecessor Leon Brittan cite external imperatives as a
rationale for ‘Europeanisation’, but in both cases this
‘Europeanisation’ should take a neoliberal form:
“ Globalisation, a
key element of which is international commerce, facilitated by the
liberalisation of trade and investment, is not a zero-sum game where some lose
what others gain. It is to my mind a win-win process, as post-war economic
history shows. Europe has profited from it, and will continue to do so, provided
that it preserves its long term competitiveness, its capacity for innovation,
and its social market economy … I know that part of public opinion in Europe
focuses more on the risks than the benefits of globalisation. Such opinion is
concerned about possible instability, aggression, loss of identity. I do not
share these concerns, but we have to take on board these worries and seek to
convince our fellow European citizens that the answers lie in the quality of our
own internal policies and in progress towards multilateral rules. We must not
allow globalisation to become an alibi, or to be seen as a malign influence”[iv].
From this stance,
European integration might be read as the deliberate facilitation of
globalisation. If this discourse presents globalisation as an opportunity for
those prepared to adapt themselves to its logic of economic compulsion, then the
second presents an altogether different image. Globalisation is again presented
as an ongoing, indeed largely inexorable, process of economic change. Despite
the rhetoric and, indeed, the reality of resistance, there is a certain sense of
fatalism about the process of globalisation depicted here. Globalization
captured the sense that there was something more than incremental change taking
place – that all countries would be affected to some degree by the scale of
integration, that no activities within countries were immune to the process, and
that it could help some countries to leap-frog development stages. This leads us
to consider Globalisation as the threat of homogenisation.
The WTO was established in 1995 to administer the rules of international
trade agreed to by its 123 member countries. These rules have been ratified
by the parliaments of all members.The key difference between the WTO and the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which it replaced, is that
the WTO is a permanent organisation with the judicial powers to rule on
international trade disputes. The WTO also covers trade in services, whereas
GATT only covered trade in goods.
IMF has 182 member countries.
Ibidem, Wallace, H. (2000), p 16.
Pascal Lamy, speech ‘Globalisation: a win-win process, Brussels, 15