Advertisement

Acta Politica

, Volume 45, Issue 1–2, pp 158–182 | Cite as

Governing EU accession in transition countries: The role of non-state actors

  • Tanja A BörzelEmail author
  • Aron Buzogány
Original Article

Abstract

Accession appears to be both a blessing and a curse to transition countries. On the one hand, EU membership supports their transformation from authoritarian regimes with centralized planning economies into liberal democracies with market economies. On the other hand, the accession countries face great difficulties in restructuring their economic and political institutions in order to meet the conditions for EU membership. The systematic involvement of non-state actors in the adoption of and adaptation to EU requirements was thought to be a remedy for the problems of European Enlargement towards ‘weak’ transition countries. Companies and civil society organizations could provide the governments of the accession countries with important resources (money, information, expertise and support) that are necessary to make EU policies work. The article explores the role of non-state actors in governing the double challenge of transition and accession. Focusing on the field of environmental policy, we seek to find out to what extent accession has empowered non-state actors by giving them a voice in the adoption of and adaptation to the EU's green acquis. Our study on the implementation of EU environmental policies in Poland, Hungary and Romania shows that accession left little room for the involvement of non-state actors into the policy process. The article argues that both state and non-state actors in transition countries were often too weak to make cooperation work during the accession period. The double weakness of transition countries and a political culture hostile to public involvement seriously constrained the empowering of non-state actors by ‘Europeanization through accession’.

Keywords

Europeanization EU enlargement civil society environmental policy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Sonja Guttenbrunner, whose research built the basis for our study on Poland. We are also grateful to Miranda Schreurs, JoAnn Carmin, Guy Peters, Guido Schwellnus and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. The research is based on the project ‘Coping with Accession. New Modes of Governance and Eastern Enlargement, part of the Integrated Project ‘New Modes of Governance in Europe’, funded by the 6th Framework Programme of the European Union (CIT1-CT-2004-506392).

References

  1. Andonova, L.B. (2004) Transnational Politics of the Environment: The European Union and Environmental Policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Archibald, S., Banu, L. and Bochniarz, Z. (2004) Market liberalisation and sustainability in transition: Turning points and trends in central and Eastern Europe. Environmental Politics 13: 266–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auer, M. (2004) Restoring Cursed Earth: Appraising Environmental Policy Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  4. Barariu, S. (2005) Fabricile româneşti polueazǎ dosarul integrarii. (Romanian factories pollute the folder of the integration) Capital, 3 November.Google Scholar
  5. Bohne, E. (2006) The Quest for Environmental Regulatory Integration in the European Union: Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, Environmental Impact Assessment and Major Accident Prevention. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  6. Börzel, T.A. (2003) Environmental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union. Why There is (Not) a Southern Problem. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Börzel, T.A. (2006) Participation through law enforcement. The case of the European union. Comparative Political Studies 39 (1): 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bozsó, B. and Nagy, D. (2005) Natura 2000 Civil szemmel. Áttekintés a Natura 2000 munkacsoport eddigi munkájáról (Natura 2000 seen by NGOs. Overview of the work of the Natura 2000 Working Group). Budapest: CEEWEB.Google Scholar
  9. Bruszt, L. (2008) Multi-level governance – the eastern versions: Emerging patterns of regional development governance in the new member states. Regional and Federal Studies 18 (5): 607–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bulmer, S. and Lequesne, C. (eds.) (2005) Member States and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burada, V. and Berceanu, D. (2005) Dialogue for Civil Society. Report on the State of Civil Society in Romania 2005 – CIVICUS Civil Society Index Report for Romania. Bucharest: Bucharest Civil Society Development Foundation (CSDF).Google Scholar
  12. Buzogány, A. (2009a) Hungary. In: T.A. Börzel (ed.) Coping with Accession: New Modes of Governance in the New Member State. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  13. Buzogány, A. (2009b) Romania. In: T.A. Börzel (ed.) Coping with Accession New Modes of Governance in the New Member State. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  14. Caddy, J. (2000) Implementation of EU Environmental policy in future member states: The case of EIA. In: C. Knill and A. Lenschow (eds.) Implementing EU Environmental Policy: New Directions and Old Problems. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  15. CES. (2003) Az önkéntes környezetvédelmi megállapodások bevezetése Magyarországon (The introduction of voluntary environmental agreements in Hungary), http://www.ktk-ces.hu/onkentes_rep.pdf Budapest: Center for Environmental Studies.
  16. Coalitia ONG Natura 2000 Romania. (2007) Raport de activitate perioada 2005–2006. Activity Report 2005-2006 (on file).Google Scholar
  17. DANCEE. (2001) The Environmental Challenge of EU Enlargement in Central and Eastern Europe. Coppenhagen: Danish Cooperation for Environment in Eastern Europe.Google Scholar
  18. DANCEE. (2003) Romania's Road to the Accession: The Need for an Environmental Focus. Copenhagen: DANCEE.Google Scholar
  19. Dragomirescu, S., Muica, C. and Turnock, D. (1998) Environmental action during Romania's early transition years. Environmental Politics 7 (1): 162–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ECOTEC. (2000) Administrative Capacity for Implementation and Enforcement of EU Environmental Policy in the 3 Candidate Countries. A Final Report to DG Environment. Service Contract B7-8110/2000/159960/MAR/H1. Bruxelles: ECOTEC.Google Scholar
  21. EDC. (1997) Compliance Costing for Approximation of EU Environmental Legislation in the CEEC. Brussels and Dublin: EDC.Google Scholar
  22. Ehrke, V.A.M. (2009) An Ever Cleaner Union? The Impact of European Environmental Measures in Poland and Ukraine. PhD thesis, Konstanz: University of Konstanz, Germany.Google Scholar
  23. Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T. and De Sherbinin, A. (2005) Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. (2005a) Regular Report from the Commission on Romania's Progress Towards Accession. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission. (2005b) Romania – 2005 Comprehensive Monitoring Report. COM 534 Final.Google Scholar
  26. Evans, P.B. (1995) Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fagan, A. (2004) Environment and Democracy in the Czech Republic: The Environmental Movement in the Transition Process. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fairbrass, J. and Jordan, A. (2001) Protecting biodiversity in the European Union: National barriers and European opportunities? Journal of European Public Policy 8 (4): 499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Falk, B.J. (2003) The Dilemmas of Dissidence in East-Central Europe: Citizen Intellectuals and Philosopher kings. Budapest; New York: Central European University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Finke, B. (2007) Civil society participation in EU governance. Living Reviews in European Governance 2 (2), http://europeangovernance.livingreviews.org/Articles/lreg-2007-2002.Google Scholar
  31. Gerhards, J. and Lengfeld, H. (2008) Support for European union environmental policy by citizens of EU-member and accession states. Comparative Sociology 7 (2): 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gille, Z. (2004) Europeanising Hungarian waste policies: Progress or regression? Environmental Politics 13: 114–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Glinski, P. and Koziarek, M. (2008) Nature protection NGOs in Poland: Between tradition, professionalism and radicalism, In: K. Van Koppen, C. S. A. van Koppen and W. T. Markham (eds.) Protecting Nature: Organizations and Networks in Europe and the USA. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Greenspan Bell, R. (2004) Hungary: Developing institutions to support environmental protection. In: M. Auer (ed.) To Restore Cursed Earth. Appraising Environmental Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield Press.Google Scholar
  35. Grubek, N. (2008) A Natura 2000 jogi szabályozása – tanulmány 200. Legal regulation of Natura 2000 (mimeo on file).Google Scholar
  36. Guttenbrunner, S. (forthcoming) Poland. In: T. A. Börzel (ed.) New Modes of Governance and Accession to the EU. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  37. Gyulai, I. (2004) Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis at the Local and Regional Level. Hungary: Capacity Review Report of the CMDC Joint Venture project. EuropeAid/116215/CSV/PHA).Google Scholar
  38. Hellman, J.S., Jones, G. and Kaufmann, D. (2000) Seize the State, Seize the Day' – State Capture, Corruption, and Influence in Transition. In: T.W. Bank (ed.), Policy Research Working Paper.Google Scholar
  39. Héritier, A. and Eckert, S. (2008) New modes of governance in the shadow of hierarchy: Self-regulation by industry in Europe. Journal of Public Policy 28 (1): 113–138.Google Scholar
  40. Homeyer, I.v. (2001) Enlarging EU Environmental Policy. Robert Schuman Centre, European University Institute, Florence. Environmental Studies Workshop ‘Environmental Challenges of EU Easten Enlargement.Google Scholar
  41. Homeyer, I.v. (2004) Differential effects of enlargement on EU environmental governance. Environmental Politics 13 (1): 52–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Howard, M.M. (2003) The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Iankova, E.A. (2009) Business, Government, and EU Accession: Strategic Partnership and Conflict. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  44. Jávor, B. and Németh, K. (2007) Kisebb állam, nagyobb baj? Jelentés a zöldhatósági rendszer kialakításának értékeléséről (Smaller state, bigger problem? A report about the evaluation of the reform of the environmental protection system). Társadalomkutatás 25 (4): 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kohler-Koch, B. (2000) Framing the bottleneck of constructing legitimate institutions. Journal of European Public Policy 7 (4): 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kohlheb, N. and Pataki, G. (2002) A környezetvédelmi felügyelőségek mint street-level bureaucracy szerepe a környezetpolitikában (The role of environmental inspectorates as street-level bureaucracy). Budapest – Gödöllő: BKÁE Környezetgazdaságtani és Technológiai Tanszék.Google Scholar
  47. Koutalakis, C. (2008) Regulatory effects of participatory environmental networks. The case of the ‘seville process. In: T. Conzelmann and R. Smith (eds.) Multi-level governance in the European Union: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  48. Krochmal, L. (2004) Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis at the Local and Regional Level Capacity: Poland. Capacity Review Report of the CMDC Joint Venture project. EuropeAid/116215/CSV/PHA.Google Scholar
  49. Krüger, C. (2001) Environmental Policy and Law in Romania: Towards EU Accession. Berlin: Ecologic.Google Scholar
  50. KÜM. (2004) Az Európai Unió Közösségi Vívmányai átvételének Nemzeti Programja (National Programme for the Adoptation of the Acquis). Budapest: Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
  51. Lange, B. (2008) Implementing EU Pollution Control: Law and Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Linz, J.J. and Stepan, A. (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Marin, B. (1990) Generalized Political Exchange. Antagonistic Cooperation and Integrated Policy Circuits. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  54. Marin, B. and Mayntz, R. (eds.) (1991) Policy Network: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  55. Mayer, Z. and Dragos, T. (2005) Az IPPC irányelv végrehajtásának alakulása az Európai Unióban és Magyarországon. (The implementation of the IPPC Directive in the EU and Hungary). Budapest: Magyar Természetvédök Szövetsége.Google Scholar
  56. Mayntz, R. (1993) Modernization and the logic of interogranizational networks. In: J. Child, M. Crozier and R. Mayntz (eds.) Societal Change Between Market and Organization. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  57. Mayntz, R. and Scharpf, F.W. (eds.) (1995) Gesellschaftliche Selbstregulierung und politische Steuerung. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  58. MEWM. (2004) Romanian Strategy for Environment 2004–2010. Bucharest: Ministry of Environment and Water Management.Google Scholar
  59. Mocsári, J. (2004a) Environment policy in Hungary. In: A. Ágh (ed.) Europeanization and Regionalization: Hungary's Preparation for EU-Accession. Budapest: Hungarian Center for Democracy Studies.Google Scholar
  60. Mocsári, J. (2004b) Missing Details Behind the Big Picture: The Delayed Implementation of the Habitats Directive in Hungary. Budapest Papers on Europeanization 18.Google Scholar
  61. Móra, V. (2008) A zöldek (környezet-, természet – és állatvédő szervezetek). Civil Szemle 5 (1–2): 119–131.Google Scholar
  62. MTI-Econews. (10 June 2004) Lemaradásban a hazai Natura 2000 (Hungarian Natura 2000 is delayed). Budapest: MTI-Econews.Google Scholar
  63. Népszabadság Online. (2005 July 14) Környezetvédelmi útmutató a gyógyszeriparnak.Google Scholar
  64. Neven, I. and Kistenkas, F. (2005) Eurosites Insights. Image, Implementation, Interpretation and Intregration of Natura 2000 in European Perspective. Wageningen: Alterra.Google Scholar
  65. Nicholson, T. (2008) We and they' ‘NGOs’ Influence on Decision-Making Processes in the Visegrad Group Countries. Tokyo: The Sasakawa Peace Foundation/The Sasakawa Central Europe Fund.Google Scholar
  66. Obradovic, D. and Alonso Vizcaino, J.M. (2007) Good governance requirements concerning the participation of interest groups in EU consultations. In: D. Obradovic and H. Pleines (eds.) The Capacity of Central and Eastern European Interest Groups to Participate in EU Governance. Stuttgart: Ibidem Publishers.Google Scholar
  67. Olearius, A. (2006) Zwischen Empowerment und Instrumentalisierung: Nichtstaatliche Akteure der Umweltpolitik während des Beitrittprozesses. In: A. Kutter and V. Trappmann (eds.) Das Erbe des Beitritts: Europäisierung in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  68. Papp, T. (2006) Migrans December, http://www.milvus.ro/English/Migrans/2006dec_ro.pdf.Google Scholar
  69. Pavlinek, P. and Pickles, J. (2000) Environmental Transitions. Transformation and Ecological Defense in Central and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Pavlinek, P. and Pickles, J. (2005) Environmental past/environmental futures in post-socialist Europe, In: J. Carmin (ed.) EU enlargement and the environment. Institutional change and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Peters, B.G. and Pierre, J. (2004) Multi-level governance and democracy: A Faustian bargain? In: I. Bache and M. Flinders (eds.) Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Raik, K. (2006) Promoting democracy in the eastern neighbourhood – The limits and potential of ENP. The International Spectator 3: 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rauschmayer, F., van den Hove, S.v.d. and Koetz, T. (2009) Participation in EU biodiversity governance: How far beyond rhetoric? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 27 (1): 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding Governance. Policy Networks, Governance Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Romhányi, T. (2004) A bürokrácia ötszáz napja [The fiverhundred days of bureaucracy]. Népszabadság.Google Scholar
  76. Scharpf, F.W. (1997) Games real Actors Play. Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  77. Schimmelfennig, F. (2005) Strategic calculations and international socialization: Membership incentives, party constellations and sustained compliance in Central and Eastern Europe. International Organization 4: 827–860.Google Scholar
  78. Schimmelfennig, F. and Sedelmeier, U. (2005) The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Schreurs, M.A. (2004) EU enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in central and Eastern Europe. Environmental Politics 13 (1): 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sissenich, B. (2007) Building States Without Societies. European Union Enlargement and the Transfer of EU Social Policy to Poland and Hungary. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  81. Sissenich, B. (2008) Cross-national policy networks and the state: EU social policy transfer to Poland and Hungary. European Journal of International Relations 14 (3): 455–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Smismans, S. (2006) Civil Society And Legitimate European Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Streeck, W. and Schmitter, P.C. (1985) Community, market, state – and associations? The prospective contribution of interest governance to social order. In: W. Streeck and P. C. Schmitter (eds.) Private Interest Government. Beyond Market and State. London : SAGE.Google Scholar
  84. Turnock, D. (2001) Environmental problems and policies in East Central Europe: A changing agenda. GeoJournal 54: 485–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vay, M. (ed.) (2005) Zengő – Ökológia, politika és társadalmi mozgalmak a Zengő-konfliktusban. (Zengő: Ecology, politics and social movements in the Zengő-conflict). Budapest: Védegylet.Google Scholar
  86. Weiss, L. (1998) The Myth of the Powerless State Governing the Economy in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  87. Zubek, R. (2008) Core executive and Europeanization in Central Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Otto Suhr Institute for Political Science, Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.German University of Administrative Sciences, SpeyerSpeyerGermany

Personalised recommendations