Advertisement

The Review of International Organizations

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 111–133 | Cite as

Success in slow motion: The Europeanization of Romanian child protection policy

  • Wade JacobyEmail author
  • Gabriel Lataianu
  • Camelia Manuela Lataianu
Article

Abstract

This paper analyzes the influence of the European Union (EU) through a qualitative case study of child protection policy in Romania. This is a particularly tough case for the growing “Europeanization” literature. Prior research has called attention to several factors that promote Europeanization, including the presence of a pro-reform domestic coalition, the clarity and consistency of the EU’s own legislative targets, a state’s own prior involvement in the setting of European standards, a strong consensus among EU member states backing the European position, and strong non-European support for EU initiatives. According to these propositions, Romanian child protection seemed to provide a worst case scenario for Europeanization, as initially none of these conditions held. And yet the paper shows that substantial Europeanization occurred anyway. We argue that the EU experienced a very slow start with Romania but that it cultivated an opposition that responded to EU initiatives when that opposition took power. Moreover, the EU found three “workarounds” to the obstacles just noted: it asserted legislative targets it did not possess itself, invented new policy tools, and drew protection for its most controversial policy from another international organization, the ECHR. Our central theoretical claim is that external pressure requires internal accommodation in order to have lasting effects. The claim has important implications for the diffusion and conditionality debates.

Keywords

European Union Conditionality Child protection Romania Enlargement International organizations Social policy 

JEL Classification

F53 J12 J13 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Cornel Ban, Gerald Hansen, III and Larry Nelson for comments on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Allegret, J., & Dulbecco, P. (2006). The institutional failures of International Monetary Fund conditionality. Review of International Organizations, 2(4), 309–327.Google Scholar
  2. Bainham, A. (2003). International adoption from Romania: why the moratorium should not be ended. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 15, 223–46.Google Scholar
  3. Börzel, T. (2002). Pace-setting, foot-dragging, and fence-sitting: member state responses to Europeanization. Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 803–24.Google Scholar
  4. Börzel, T. & Risse, T. (2000). When Europe hits home: Europeanization and domestic change. European Integration Online Papers, 4(15).Google Scholar
  5. Calvo-Gonzales, O. (2007). Ownership and conditionality in IMF-supported programs: back to Per Jacobsson’s time. Review of International Organizations, 2(4), 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson, M., & Felton, E. (1997). Psychological and neuroendocrinological sequelae of early social deprivation in institutionalized children in Romania. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 807, 419–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carothers, T. (2004). Critical mission: Essays on democracy promotion. Washington: Carnegie.Google Scholar
  8. Deacon, B. (2007). Global social policy and governance. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Delegation of the European Commission in Romania (2004). Fisa de Sector: Protectia Copilului. February.Google Scholar
  10. Delegation of the European Commission in Romania (2005a). Fisa de Sector: Protectia Copilului. February.Google Scholar
  11. Delegation of the European Commission in Romania (2005b). Child Protection Information Sector Report. July.Google Scholar
  12. Dickens, J. (2002). The paradox of inter-country adoption: analysing Romania’s experience as a sending country. International Journal of Social Welfare, 11, 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickens, J., & Groza, V. (2004). Empowerment in difficulty: a critical appraisal of international intervention in child welfare in Romania. International Social Work, 47(4), 469–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekiert, G. & Hanson, S. (eds.). (2003). Capitalism and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Epstein, R. (2005). The paradoxes of enlargement. European Political Science, 4, 384–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Epstein, R. (2008). In pursuit of liberalism: International Institutions in Postcommunist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission (1998). Regular Report on Romanias Progress Towards Accession. 2005.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (1999a). Commission sets out an ambitious accession strategy and proposes to open accession negotiations with six more candidate countries. Press Release IP/99/751, October 13.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission (1999b). Regular Report on Romanias Progress Towards Accession.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission (2005). Romania: Comprehensive Monitoring Report.Google Scholar
  21. Gallagher, T. (2005). Modern Romania: The End of Communism, the Failure of Democratic Reform, and the Theft of a Nation. New York: NYU.Google Scholar
  22. Gheciu, A. (2005). NATO in thenew Europe: The politics of international socialization after the cold war. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gheţau, V. (1997). Maternal mortality and abortion in Romania 1989–1996. Bucharest: UNFPA.Google Scholar
  24. Glenn, J. (2004). From nation-states to member states: accession negotiations as an instrument of Europeanization. Comparative European Politics, 2, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldsmith, B. (2005). Imitation in International relations: Observational learning, analogies and foreign policy in Russia and Ukraine. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  26. Goldstein, L., & Ban, C. (2005). The rule of law and the European human rights regime. In M. Hoffmann, & A. Ba (Eds.), Coherence and Contestation: Contending Perspectives on Global Governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Group for the Analysis of the Inter-Country Adoption System (GIASAI) (2002). Reorganizing the international adoption and child protection system. Bucharest. Accessed at http://www.afaener.org/Rapport_FINAL_ang.doc.
  28. Grabbe, H. (2006). The EUs Transformative Power: Europeanization through Conditionality in Central and Eastern Europe. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  29. Greenwell, K. (2003). The Effects of Child Welfare Reform on Levels of Child Abandonment and Deinstitutionalization in Romania, 1987–2000. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Texas.Google Scholar
  30. Hafner-Burton, E. (2005). Trading human rights: how preferential trade agreements influence government repression. International Organization, 59, 593–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henderson, S. (2003). Building democracy in contemporary Russia: Western support for grassroots organizations. Ithaca: Cornell.Google Scholar
  32. Hughes, J., Sasse, G., & Gordon, C. (2004). Europeanization and Regionalization in the EUs enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe: The myth of conditionality. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  33. Iordache, L. (1999). Child protection between good intentions and lack of responsibility. Euro-Romanian Bulletin no. 5–6.Google Scholar
  34. Jacoby, W. (2000). Imitation and politics: Redesigning modern Germany. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jacoby, W. (2004). The Enlargement of the EU and NATO: Ordering from the menu in Central Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jacoby, W. (2006). Inspiration, coalition, and substitution: external influences on postcommunist transformations. World Politics, 58(4), 623–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jerre, U. (2005). The state of knowledge about child protection in Romania. Working Paper, Lund University, Sweden accessed on 01/22/06 at: http://www.childrights.ro/downloads/Ulrika_Report_UNICEF.pdf.
  38. Kaler, S., & Freeman, B. J. (1994). Analysis of environmental deprivation: cognitive and social development in Romanian orphans. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(4), 769–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kapstein, E. (2003). The baby trade. Foreign Affairs, 82(6), 115–125.Google Scholar
  40. Kelley, J. (2004). Ethnic Politics in Europe: The power of norms and incentives. Princeton: Princeton.Google Scholar
  41. Kelley, J. (2007). Who keeps international commitments and why? the International Criminal Court and bilateral non-surrender agreements. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 573–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kligman, G. (1998). The politics of duplicity: Controlling reproduction in ceausescus Romania. Berkeley: California.Google Scholar
  43. Lambru, M., & Rosu, C. (2000). Actiunea statului in domeniul protectiei copilului in dificultate din Romania. Profil de reforma. [State intervention in the domain of children in need in Romania].. In I. Mihailescu (Ed.), Un deceniu de tranzitie. Situatia copilului in Romania [A Decade of Transition: The Situation of Child and Family in Romania]. Bucharest: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  44. Lataianu, C. (2001). Social Policies for the Protection of Abandoned Children: Institutionalisation and Alternatives to Institutionalisation of Children in Post-Communist Romania. Bucharest: BCS.Google Scholar
  45. Lataianu, C. (2003). Social protection of children in public care in Romania from the perspective of EU integration. International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family, 17, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lataianu, G. (2004). Europeanisation as a modernising factor of Post-Communist Romania. PhD dissertation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.Google Scholar
  47. Legro, J. (1997). Which norms matter? Revisiting the “failure” of internationalism. International Organization, 51, 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Linden, R. (editor). (2002). Norms and Nannies: The Impact of International Organizations on the Central and East European States. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  49. Linden, R. (2004). Twin peaks: Romania and Bulgaria between the EU and the United States. Problems of Post-Communism, 51(5), 45–55.Google Scholar
  50. Maclean, K. (2003). The impact of socialization on child development. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 853–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mayer, W., & Mourmouras, A. (2008). IMF conditionality: an approach based on the theory of special interest politics. Review of International Organizations, 3(2), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI) (2006). Hidden suffering: Romanias Segregation and Abuse of Infants and Children with Disabilities. Washington: MDRI.Google Scholar
  53. Micklewright, J., & Stewart, K. (2001). Child Well-Being in the EU and Enlargement to the East. In K. Vleminckx (Ed.), Child Well-being, Child Poverty and Child Policy in Modern Nations: What Do We Know? (pp. 99–127). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  54. Murray, R. W. (2006). A true revolution. Transitions Online, January 2.Google Scholar
  55. National Authority for the Protection of Child’s Rights (NACPR) (2006). Child Welfare in Romania: The story of a Reform Process. Bucharest: Romania, www.copii.ro.
  56. O’Dwyer, C. (2006). Reforming regional governance in East Central Europe: Europeanization or domestic politics as usual? East European Politics and Societies, 20(2), 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Orenstein, M., & Schmitz, H. (2005). The new transnationalism and comparative politics. Comparative Politics, 38(4).Google Scholar
  58. Parker, S., & Nelson, C. (2005). The impact of early institutional rearing on the ability to discriminate facial expressions of emotion: an event-related potential study. Child Development, 76(1), 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pevehouse, J. (2005). Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  60. Phinnemore, D. (2007). The EU and the quest for leverage: The changing dynamics of pre-accession “assistance” in eastern enlargement. EUSA paper, May.Google Scholar
  61. Pridham, G. (2005). Designing Democracy: EU Enlargement and Regime Change in Post-Communist Europe. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  62. Radaelli, C. (2000). Whither Europeanization? Concept stretching and substantive change. European Integration Online Papers, 4(8).Google Scholar
  63. Roth, M. (1999). The interesection of tradition and need of change in the Romanian child protection system. Open Society Institute Working Paper available at http://e-lib.rss.cz.
  64. Save the Children (1995). Report by the Federation of NGOs Active in Child protection to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  65. Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier U. (eds). (2005). The Europeanization of Eastern Europe: Evaluating the Conditionality Model. Ithaca: Cornell.Google Scholar
  66. Schwellnuss, G. (2005). The Adoption of Non-Discrimination and Minority Protection Rules in Romania, Hungary, and Poland. In F. Schimmelfennig, & U. Sedelmeier (Eds.), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 51–70). Ithaca: Cornell.Google Scholar
  67. Shafir, M. (1997). Romania’s road to normalcy. Journal of Democracy, 8(2), 144–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sissenich, B. (2005). The Transfer of EU Social Policy to Poland and Hungary. In F. Schimmelfennig, & U. Sedelmeier (Eds.), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 156–77). Ithaca: Cornell.Google Scholar
  69. Smyke, A., Dumitrescu, A., & Zeanah, C. (2002). Attachment disturbances in young children: The continuum of caretaking casualty. Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(8), 972–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stone, R. (2002). Lending credibility: The International Monetary Fund and the post communist transition. Princeton: Princeton.Google Scholar
  71. UNICEF (1997). Children at Risk in Central and Eastern Europe: Perils and Promises. Regional Monitoring Report no. 4. Innocenti Centre, Florence.Google Scholar
  72. UNICEF (2001). Closing Long-Term Residential Institutions: Best Practices. Conference Report, Bucharest, September 21–22.Google Scholar
  73. UNICEF (2004). Assessing the progress of child care system reform in Romania. Geneva: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  74. USAID (1996). Future of Romania (FoR) Children Project. End of Project Evaluation Team Analysis for Cooperative Agreement No. EUR-0032-A-00-2059-00.Google Scholar
  75. USAID (2001). Report on Intercountry Adoption in Romania. Bucharest: USAID.Google Scholar
  76. US Embassy in Romania (2001). Half Way Home: Romanias Abandoned Children Ten Years After the Revolution. US Embassy Report, Bucharest, Romania.Google Scholar
  77. Vachudova, M (2005). Europe undivided: democracy, leverage, and integration after communism. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  78. Weyland, K. (2005). The diffusion of innovations: how cognitive heuristics shaped Bolivia’s pension reform. Comparative Politics, 38(1), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zeanah, C., Nelson, C., Fox, N., Smyke, A., Marshall, P., Parker, S., et al. (2003). Designing research to study the effects of institutionalization on brain and behavioral development: the Bucharest early intervention project. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 885–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zeanah, C., Smyke, A., Koga, S., & Carlson, E. (2005). Attachment in institutionalized and community children in Romania. Child Development, 76(5), 1015–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zielonka, J., & Pravda, A. (eds). (2001). Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe: International and Transnational Factors. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wade Jacoby
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gabriel Lataianu
    • 2
  • Camelia Manuela Lataianu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.Estrella Mountain Community CollegeAvondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations