Abstract
When the EU first acknowledged that those associated CEECs that ‘so desire’ could become members, at the Copenhagen European Council meeting in June 1993, it expressed the political and economic conditions for membership in vaguely worded and normative statements of intent in the ‘Copenhagen criteria’. As we discussed in Chapter 1, the criteria laid down three conditions for applicant states (the stability of their democracy, the proper functioning of their market economy, and their capacity to integrate with the EU) and a fourth condition related to the EU’s own capacity to absorb the new members (see Box 1.1). Although the details of how these conditions were to be met were not elaborated at the time, by implication it was understood that some objective criteria would be devised by which to evaluate applicants. The fourth condition gave the EU a pocket veto on the accession of new members, since it would take the final decision on whether it was ready to enlarge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
European Council (1993) Presidency Conclusions, Copenhagen European Council, 21–22 June 1993.
Heather Grabbe and Kirsty Hughes (1997) ‘Redefining the European Union: Eastward Enlargement’, RIIA Briefing paper 36, London: Royal Institute for International Affairs; Karen Henderson (ed.), (1999) Back to Europe: Central crnd Eastern Europe and the European Union, London: UCL Press.
European Council (1994) Presidency Conclusions, Essen European Council, 9–10 December 1994; and European Council (1995) Presidency Conclusions, Madrid European Council, 15–16 December 1995: http://europa.eu.int/european_ council/conclusions/index_en.htm. 4. James Hughes, Gwendolyn Sasse and Claire Gordon (2003) ‘EU Enlargement, Europeanisation and the Dynamics of Regionalisation in the CEECs’, in Micheal Keating and James Hughes (eds), The Regional Challenge in Central and Eastern Europe: Territorial Restructuring and European Integration, Paris: P.I.E.- Peter Lang, 69–88.
European Council (1995) Presidency Conclusions, Madrid European Council.
European Commission (ed.) (1997) Agenda 2000 — Vol. 1 For a Stronger and Wider Union, COM/97/2000 final, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; European Commission (ed.) (1997) Agenda 2000 — Commission Opinions on the Application for Membership of the European Union, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Council (1997) Presidency Conclusions, Luxembourg European Council, 12–13 December. See also the information on the negotiations process on the EU’s enlargement website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement.
European Commission (ed.) (2001), Enlargement of the European Union: an Historic Opportunity, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 46.
European Commission (ed.) (2002) Directorate General Enlargement, Enlargement of the European Union, Guide to the Negotiations, Chapter by Chapter, April 2002, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Sec 102 Final, 2: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/negotiations.
European Council (2002), Presidency Conclusions, Copenhagen European Council, 12 and 13 December 2002.
Fritz Breuss (2001) ‘Macroeconomic Effects of Enlargement for Old and New Members’, WIFO Working Paper 143, March, Vienna, 2, 14.
Wim Kok (2003) ‘Enlarging the European Union: Achievement and Challenges’, Report of Wim Kok to the European Commission, RSCAS, European University Institute, 26.
See John Bachtler, Fiona Wishlade and Douglas Yuill (2001) ‘Regional Policy in Europe after Enlargement’, Regional and Industrial Policy Research Paper no. 44, European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, 1–39.
The Commission’s Enlargement Strategy Paper, approved at the European Council at Nice in December 2000, singled out Chapter 21 — as well as Chapter 7 (Agriculture) and Chapter 26 (Financial and Budgetary Provisions) — as the priority for the negotiations in 2002. European Commission (ed.) (2000) Enlargement Strategy Paper: Report on Progress towards Accession by each of the Candidate Countries, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Among the CEECs the Czech Republic was first to provisionally close Chapter 21 in April 2002. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania followed in June 2002; Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia in July 2002; and Poland in October 2002.
Michael Keating and Lisbeth Hooghe (1996) ‘By-Passing the Nation-State? Regions and the EU Policy Process’, in Jeremy John Richardson (ed.), European Union, Power and Policy-Making, London: Routledge, 224–6; Ian Bache (1998) The Politics of European Union Regional Policy. Multi-Level Governance or Flexible Gatekeeping?, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press; European Council Regulation (1999).
In some states structural funds are controlled by central finance ministries (as in the UK, Ireland and France). For a criticism of the ‘fairy-tale character’ of the structural funds which are often treated as a reimbursement for national spending rather than a genuine instrument of regional development policy see Michael Keating (1993) The Politics of Modern Europe, Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 299–300.
Keating (1993: 302–7); Lisbeth Hooghe (1995) ‘Subnational Mobilization in the European Union’, West European Politics, 18 (4), 175–98; Charlie Jeffery (2000) ‘Sub-National. Mobilization and European Integration: Does it Make Any Difference?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38 (1), 20; Beate Kohler-Koch (2002) ‘European Networks and Ideas: Changing National. Policies?’, European Integration On-line Papers, 6 (6): http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2002–006a.htm.
Lisbeth Hooghe and Gary Marks (2001) Multi-level Governance and European Integration, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 85.
James Hughes, Gwendolyn Sasse and Claire Gordon (2001) ‘The Regional Deficit in Eastward Enlargement of the European Union: Top Down Policies and Bottom Up Reactions’, ESRC ‘One Europe or Several?’ Working Paper 29/01, Brighton: Sussex University, 1–57. See also Antoaneta L. Dimitrova (2002), ‘Enlargement, Institution-Building and the EU’s Administrative Capacity Requirement’, West European Politics, 25 (4), 171–90.
European Union Committee of the Regions (1999) Resolution of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The Ongoing EU Enlargement Process’, Brussels, 24 November 1999; European Union Committee of the Regions (2001) Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Supporting the Development ofInstitutional Structures at Local and Regional Level in the Applicant Countries’, Brussels, 14 November 2001.
European Commission (ed.) (1997) Agenda 2000 — Commission Opinion on the Czech Republic’s Application for Membership of the European Union, Doc. 97/17, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; European Commission (ed.) (1997) Agenda 2000 — Commission Opinion on Estonia’s Application for Membership of the European Union, Doc. 97/12, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; European Commission (ed.) (1997) Agenda 2000 — Commission Opinion on Hungary’s Application for Membership of the European Union, Doc. 97/13, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; European Commission (ed.) (1997) Agenda 2000 — Commission Opinion on Poland’s Application for Membership of the European Union, Doc. 97/16, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; European Commission (ed.) (1997) Agenda 2000 — Commission Opinion on Slovenia’s Application for Membership of the European Union, Doc. 97/19, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission (2002), Directorate General Enlargement, Enlargement of the European Union, Guide to the Negotiations, Chapter by Chapter, April 2002, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/negotiations.
For details of PHARE see European Commission (ed.) (2000) PHARE 2000 Review, Strengthening Preparations for Membership, COM (2000) 3103/2, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. For a discussion of problems with ‘Twinning’ see Hughes, Sasse and Gordon (2001: 51–3).
Attila Agh (2002) ‘The Reform of State Administration in Hungary: the Capacity of Core Ministries to Manage Europeanization’, Budapest Papers on Europeanization, No. 7, Budapest: Hungarian Centre for Democracy Studies Foundation; Dimitrova (2002).
Gyula Horvath (1998) ‘Regional and Cohesion Policy in Hungary’, Discussion Paper 23, Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 63–4.
European Commission (2001), Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliarnent and the Council on the Establishment of a Common Classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS), 14 February 2001, 2: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2001/en_501PC0083.pdf.
European Commission (ed.) (2001), Regular Report on Slovenia’s Progress toward Accession, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2001/si_en.pdf.
Jan Hoich and Kristina Larisova (1999) ‘Reform der offentlichen Verwaltung und Bildung der regionalen Selbstverwaltung in der Tschechischen Republik im Kontext des EU-Beitritts’, in Eric von Breska and Martin Brusis (eds), Central and Eastern Europe on the Way to the European Union: Reforms of Regional Administration in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, Munich: Centre for Applied Policy Research.
European Commission (2001), Proposal on the Establishment of a Common Classification ofNUTS, European Council Regulation (2003) No. 1059/2003 of 26 May 2003: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/1_154/1_15420030 621en00010041.pdf.
European Commission (ed.) (1997) Opinion on Hungary, 90.
European Commission (ed.) (1997) Opinion on Poland, 88.
European Commission (ed.) (1997) Agenda 2000 — Commission Opinion on Slovakia’s Application for Membership of the European Union, Doc. 97/20, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 100.
European Commission (ed.) (1997) Opinion on the Czech Republic, 83.
European Commission (ed.) (1997) Opinion on the Czech Republic, 83.
Authors’ interview, Polish Mission to the European Union, 28 March 2001.
European Commission (ed.) (1998a) Regular Report from the Commission on Hungary’s Progress towards Accession, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 33.
European Commission (ed.) (1998a) Regular Report from the Commission on Romania’s Progress towards Accession, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 38.
European Commission (ed.) (2000) PHARE Annual Report 1998, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 63.
European Commission (ed.) (2002) Regular Report on Hungary’s Progres toward Accession, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of tT European Communities, 100; European Commission (ed.) (2002) Regula Report on Poland’s Progress toward Accession, Luxembourg: Office for Officia Publications of the European Communities, 105–6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2005 James Hughes, Gwendolyn Sasse and Claire Gordon
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hughes, J., Sasse, G., Gordon, C. (2005). The Commission, Conditionality and Regional Policy. In: Europeanization and Regionalization in the EU’s Enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe. One Europe or Several?. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503182_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503182_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-52022-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-50318-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)