In the light of the enlargements EU benefited as a whole union. The enlargement process contributed to improvements of the situation in old member states as well as new members. At the same time, as EU has enlarged from six members to 27 members, and in each round of enlargement, it has been accompanied by further moves to closer integration.
EU Institutions and Reforms
More and more Institutional reforms with regards to enlargement become a salient issue on the political agenda of the EU, particularly in recent years. The question to ask therefore is how far the institutions can be stretched, enlarged and restructured further. Obviously, the more states that become involved, the more it will affect the functioning of the institutions. Enlargement increases the size and heterogeneity of the EU. As a result functioning of the EU institutions and institutional engineering depend on effectiveness and legitimacy. In general, Blockmans and Prechal (2007) claim that a new reform treaty will effectively facilitate the deepening process and future institutional collaborations.
Christophie Hillion suggests that new member states have generated new demands with regard to the EU policy and constitutional functioning. For instance, the development of ENP is partly the result of the EU’s eastward enlargement. Also, the accession of Nordic EFTA’s stimulated a greater concern for transparency and openness in the decision-making process. Allegedly, the Convention on the Future of Europe had a significant impact not only as a novelty in the EU treaty revision procedure, but in its inclusion of non-members in the drafting of the Constitutional text (Hillion, 2007). Furthermore, deepening has become a requirement in the context of widening as the Commission indicates the criteria to accept new members which should be based on ‘[e]nsuring the EU’s capacity to maintain the momentum of European integration’ (EC Report, 2006b: 20).
With regards to this capacity, Amtenbrink (2007) defines three main components: institutions, common policies and the budget. He also asserts that the proposals, for instance, given by Stubb Report (2006) are too general, and there is a lack of detailed analysis of the impact of further enlargement ‘[o]n today’s institutional structure and an identification of the features of this framework that makes today’s system vulnerable to further enlargement’ (2007:116). It refers namely to the Council, the EP and Commission in their composition and decision-making procedures, and this directly affects the democratic legitimacy and efficiency of the EU as a whole. The important issue is about the balance of votes in the Council between existing and new members. The current system includes elements of a proportionate representation of Member States together with a proportionate representation of the population. However, this voting system does not accurately reflect member states’ share in the whole population of the EU. While smaller member states are anxious to be dominated by large member states, the large member states, however, are worried about being outvoted due to the disproportionate increase in the number of smaller members (Amtenbrink, 2007). The Treaty of Nice introduced a double-majority requirement with at least 62% of the total population of the Union (TEC, Article 204(5)). However, in this regard larger member states have a natural overweight and this may be one of the reasons why smaller member states are sceptical of another large country, such as Turkey, to join the EU.
Institutional reforms also include consideration to extend the powers of the EP. The Stubb Report (2006) proposes to make EP and Council equal in budgetary and legislative matters. That arises from the perception that EP is a democratic figurehead of the EU, because its members are directly elected. Amtenbrink (2007) argues that simply giving more power to the EP will not remedy the insufficiency of the proportionate representation of EU citizens and its member states. However Cox suggests that it is not a matter of EP calling for more power, but a matter of ‘[r]einforcing checks and balances in the system as a whole, and making that system understandable for European citizens’ (Cox, 2004: 389). Following Amtenbrink’s idea, that further enlargement is challenging, he claims that in assigning the seats to each member state, the system is biased in favour of the citizens of smaller states. According to the Act of Accession in 2005 the number of MEPs will be reduced to 736. This limitation is due to the intention to prevent the emergence of an assembly at the expense of efficiency and to prevent increase of the gap in terms of the representation between small and large member states with regards to their size of population.
Fears of loss of efficiency also involve the modification of Commission. Thus some may claim that it is difficult to imagine how the meaningful portfolios will be properly and equally distributed in a Union with more than 27 member states. Moreover, it is planned to establish the rotation system to ensure equal treatment of member states. However, from this reference to the equal footing it is clear that Commissioners remain to be viewed as representatives of their states rather than the Union as a whole.
Consequently, discussing the influence of enlargement on the institutional changes, it is clear how it is important to accommodate institutions of the EU to the great challenge of enlargement. Underestimating these challenges may constrain the EU in its further plans to widen and deepen. The Commission states: ‘[T]he EU does not need new institutional arrangements simply for the sake of enlargement, it also needs them so that the current Union can function better’( EC Report, 2006b: 20). Therefore widening may be considered as a facilitator of the institutional change
To some extent an enlarged and diverse EU will become more difficult to control. Indeed, it is a challenge to reach consensus in many policy areas with different national preferences. In this regard Dinan claims that ‘enlargement brings with it an obvious risk of institutional sclerosis and policymaking paralysis’ (Dinan, 2005: 158). However, observing previous enlargements according to Olsen ( 2004) despite the difficulties in reforming and restructuring the EU and despite the periods of sclerosis the development of its institutions has been stable and followed with the moves towards ‘an ever closer Union’.
II Benefits from Enlargement and Future Perspectives
Enlargement has changed the EU in different ways. In terms of finance it was beneficial as it has boosted European economy, thus opening new market and investments opportunities. In the policy field, greater concern was brought to the environmental issues by new member states. Now an enlarged EU has more political weight and has strengthened its global status as an international actor. It has also contributed to the development of the social policy. Furthermore, it has spurred the acceleration of integration in the field of justice and home affairs, especially concerning border control which has led to the launch of European Neighbourhood policy for further encouragement of stability and security in Europe (Dinan, 2005).
In terms of economy it is suggested that during the 2000-2008 period, yearly accessions gave the new Member States a growth boost of approximately 13/4 % (EC Report, 2009). Possible elements of the success were improvements due to FDI and transfer of technology. The stronger growth performance gave possibility for new Member States to catch up through increasing their GDP per capita from 40 % of the EU-15 averaging five years before enlargement to 52% in 2008. However, this catching up process was fast in some countries and slow and not strong enough in terms of reducing the income gap in other countries. For example, impressive growth occurred in Baltic countries, but was and still slow in other countries like Malta. These examples lead to the point that catching up should not be taken for granted and should draw attention to the significance of the appropriate policies to be implemented. It is worth mentioning that in general, decrease in the relative income gap between the countries is taking place but the allocation of the enlargement dividend within the countries is not proportionate, with some regions benefiting more than others. This is because of the fact that capital and skilled labour is inclined to concentrate in a limited number of regions during the initial phase of the catching-up process. When a certain stage of growth is reached: [k]nowledge spill-overs and the disadvantages of agglomeration (e.g.labour shortages) come to the fore and a more balanced income distribution is likely to be achieved (EC Report, 2009: 12).
On the whole the accession of the new Member States had a considerable effect on all member states both before and after joining the EU. The prospect of membership triggered new reforms and set a firm economic and political course towards further stable development and was beneficial for new and old member states. The new Member States were and still are benefiting from the ‘EU's solidarity principles which imply significant transfers of EU funds, while the incumbents have access to a large internal market and a large potential supply of labour’(EC Report, 2009c: 15). Although this generosity has declined over subsequent enlargements – i.e. the absorption rate of EU funds of Spain and Portugal for example, were relatively slow in compare with the new member states joined in 2004 (94% against 73%) (EC Report, 2009c:201).
The functioning of a single market in turn has been complemented by the successful introduction of a single currency. The introduction of the Euro was a significant step towards the deepening of the EU. Adoption of the common currency requires real efforts in achieving convergence between the Member States. In addition, common currency had a positive impact on economic growth as confirmed by the countries which have joined the euro area like Cyprus, Slovakia and Slovenia. It has also advanced further the emergence of a unified EU economy. Christian Noyer, Vice-President of the European Central Bank mentioned in his speech:
The depth of integration in the EU today, which is based not only, but especially, on the establishment of Economic and Monetary Union, in itself will, over time, trigger further integrative steps. These dynamics are at work anyway, and are unlikely to be derailed by the process of enlargement. Using the metaphor of the "bicycle theory", which is the notion that European integration has to progress in order to avoid backtracking on past achievements - just like a bicycle has to keep going to avoid falling over - I would argue that the future EU, rather than being diluted, is set to achieve further deepening, even if enlargement increases diversity (Noyer, 22 November, 2000).
Indeed, through shaping the institutions of the EU and furthering its policies, enlargement has shaped the political, economic and social features of member states. Dinan argues that enlargements, especially the 2004 enlargement, which induced the EU to accelerate integration in various policy areas, however, also made them more difficult to implement and manage. ‘As a result, the EU today is more integrated but also more diverse, fractious, and multifaceted than ever before’ (Dinan, 2005: 135).
Future perspectives widening its limits
With further widening, the EU will have borders with new neighbours that will open new opportunities, however, it will be a challenge to reconcile deepening processes. Indeed, it will be difficult to make deals in an enlarged and diverse Union which require effective policy making. Furthermore, with the eventual entry of Turkey and its closer relationship with Central Asian countries it will have other implications such as EU having new borders with Iran, Syria and Iraq. Thus EU borders will no longer be within Europe, but also within the Asia (Delanty and Rumford, 2005). Therefore it can raise new questions as: What is the definition of Europe? Where does the enlargement end and where is the final frontier? Indeed, the EU with more than thirty members is more likely to happen in the near future. The Western Balkans and far Eastern European countries like Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova are potential members. Even Russia one day might meet Copenhagen criteria, although it is unlikely to join the EU as Russia considers itself as an equal power to the EU, but not as a member (Dinan, 2005).
Despite difficulties in finding a political compromise and agreements on further projection of deepening, this should not be a reason to bring to an end the EU enlargement process. Blockmans (2007) provides a rationale for it explaining that the EU has already started accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia and has already granted candidate country status to some of the Balkan countries. So it would be politically unwise to step back from its commitments as it would undermine authority of the EU as a negotiating partner with candidate countries, and even internationally. Consequently, the EU cannot retreat from its role as promoter of ‘peace, security, and progress in Europe and in the world’ (preamble to the TEU) as a global actor.
III Compatibility of Widening with Deepening
As the Commission indicated in its Enlargement reports ‘widening must not be at the expense of deepening’ (Bulletin EC, 1992, p.13).
There are some theories on how deepening” and “widening” interact defined by Berglof & Burkart and others. Authors believe that members have different costs in contributing to a common good, or so to say, a “reform”.
‘…[W]hen a new member is stronger than the weakest incumbent member, deepening and widening are complements, and the effort of the Union increases. When the new member is weaker, though, they can be substitutes and the effort of the Union may fall’ (Berglof et al., 2007:1-2).
However, each accession process (including accession of poorest “weaker” members which in many cases were all new democracies) has triggered constitutional discussion, reforms and further development towards closer and strong Union. Hillion maintains that widening of the EU has often been used as a vehicle for the deepening of the EU integration process (Hillion, 2007). Widening itself has been conditional upon deepening, and an illustration of this fact can be shown by the Commission President Barroso’s words: [I] believe that institutional settlement should precede any future enlargement. This is the way to ensure that our enlarged Union will function in an efficient and harmonious way (Barroso, 2006).
There is another notion which may interconnect widening and deepening. This is called ‘adaptation’. Adaptation as described by Olsen, (Olsen, 2004) is an integral part of governance. Through the long process of integration, negotiations, learning, counteracting failures, developing reforms and further improving their performance that went together or accordingly with the enlargement, process improved adaptability of governance and Union in general. Thus with regard to the institutional reforms that were discussed in Section I, due to the period of adaptation the reforms may be reduced by strengthening reform capabilities. ‘This is so because institutionalized capabilities will make it easier to break up large-scale reform into smaller consistent reforms, digestible to the political system’(Olsen, 2004: 61).
In this sense, widening is not all about getting bigger, but it is also about transformation. Transformation in turn, if supported by sustainable institutional framework and joint efforts, may be considered as transforming integration processes to a deeper degree. This leads to a more deepening and closer union.
Hillion argues that widening and deepening can run together as parallel processes, thus using the accession treaties in order to implement institutional reforms that would simplify overall efforts. Indeed, instead of ‘...two intergovernmental processes, two ratification procedures running in parallel, there would be an overall constitutional package which could have the effect of avoiding ratification ‘fatigue’’ (Hillion, 2007).
It also gives a great possibility to reduce the risk of ratification failure stemming from the increased number of Member states.
Conclusion
Overall, enlargement is compatible and is leading to further deepening of the Union. As it was pointed out by Scholars (Cameron, Blockmans, Prechal) mentioned in this essay, every enlargement has lead to significantly more integration. It is clear that challenges brought by widening required and still require development of new policies in order to deal with economic disparities, challenges posed by globalization, and border controls including security and neighbourhood policies.
Obviously, the EU may become immobilised without going further in deepening through institutional and policy reforms and even through widening. As it is highlighted in this essay, enlargement also may contribute to the deepening process by facilitating institutional reforms and shaping the tendency of development path and the overall policy. It is also worth recalling the motto of the EU “united in diversity” and accession of new members, “refreshment”, strength and cultural diversity.
In sum, the EU remains the most successful example of international and supra-national organization today. It was mentioned throughout the essay that the history of the EU is in fact was the history of continuous enlargement. Thus probability of impact to the successful development of the EU is obvious enough.
All this means that the EU is in need to reconcile the deepening and widening processes for better functioning and future existence.
References
-
Amtenbrink, F. (2007) ‘On the European Union’s Institutional Capacity to Cope with Further Enlargement’ in S. Blockman, and S. Prechal (eds.) Reconciling the Deepening and Widening of the European Union T.M.C. Asser Press
-
Barosso, J.M. (2006) SPEECH/06/535 cited in S. Blockman, and S. Prechal, (2007) Reconciling the Deepening and Widening of the European Union T.M.C. Asser Press
-
Berglof, E., Burkart, M., Friebel, G. and Paltseva, E. (2007) Club-in-the Club: Reform under Unanimity European Corporate Governance Institute – Finance Paper No. 149/2007.
-
Blockman, S. and Prechal, S. (2007) Reconciling the Deepening and Widening of the European Union T.M.C. Asser Press
-
Cameron, F. (2004) The Future of Europe Integration and Enlargement London: Routledge
-
Cox, P. (2004) ‘Filling the Democratic Gap’ in J.H.H, Weiler, I. Begg, and J. Peterson (eds) Integration in an Expanding Union: Reassessing the Fundamentals Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
-
Dannreuther, R. (2004) European Union foreign and security policy: towards a neighbourhood strategy London: Routledge
-
Delanty, G. and Rumford, C. (2005) Rethinking Europe: Social theory and the Implications of Europeanization London: Routledge
-
Dinan, D. (2005) Ever closer union: an introduction to European integration London: Macmillan
-
a) European Commission (1992) Report on Enlargement Bulletin EC S/3-1992, p.13
-
b) European Commission (2006) supra n. 9, p.20
-
c) European Commission (2009) Report Five Years of an Enlarged EU: Economic Achievements and Challenges (COM(2009) 79 final) European Economy 1/2009 available on
-
Hillion, C. (2007) ‘Widen to Deepen? Potential and Limits of Accession Treaties to Achieve EU Constitutional Reform’ in S. Blockman, and S. Prechal (eds.) Reconciling the Deepening and Widening of the European Union T.M.C. Asser Press
- Miles, L.
-
Noyer, C. Speech delivered at the Oxford University European Affairs Society, Oxford, 22 November 2000
-
Olsen, J.P. (2004) ‘Reforming European Institutions of Governance’ in J.H.H, Weiler, I. Begg, and J. Peterson (eds) Integration in an Expanding Union: Reassessing the Fundamentals Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Stubb Report (2006) European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Report on Institutional aspects of the European Union’s capacity to integrate new Member States (2006/2226(INI)) A6-0393/2006
-
I suggest that you sharpen up the intro and the first part of the essay and
you make clear the main points of your argument, then check through all
your paragraphs and check that you link them to the essay title,
but otherwise it is good, with small improvements it will get even better,