Advertisement

Comparative European Politics

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 198–221 | Cite as

The influence of perception on the preferences of the new member states of the European Union: The case of energy policy

  • Matúš Mišík
Original Article

Abstract

This article analyses the formation of preferences in the sphere of energy policy in the new member states of the EU. It claims that the subjective perception of states’ vulnerability and strength by decision makers, that filter the objective structural and institutional attributes of a state, is a crucial point here. The empirical analysis is based on the preferences of three new members (Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland) in energy area. The results show that in the areas where decision makers perceive states as vulnerable (that is, ascribe to them the role of a weak negotiator) states support further deepening of integration to compensate for domestic shortcomings, whereas in areas where decision makers perceive their state to be capable states oppose further integration that could obstruct their ability to deal with challenges.

Keywords

domestic preferences energy energy security new member states European Union 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work on this article was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency grants no. APVV-0660-06 and APVV-0484-10. I am grateful for the comments on the earlier versions of the article made by Darina Malová, Marek Rybář, Erik Láštic, Nathaniel Copsey, Anneliese Dodds, Ed Turner, Carolyn Rowe and the anonymous reviewers. I would also like to thank all the interviewees for their willingness to take part in the research and for sharing their knowledge with me.

References

  1. Aggestam, L. (1999) Role Conceptions and the Politics of Identity in Foreign Policy. Oslo: ARENA Working Papers WP 99/08, http://www.deutsche-aussenpolitik.de/resources/seminars/gb/approach/document/wp99_8.htm, accessed 11 January 2012.
  2. Aggestam, L. (2006) Role theory and European foreign policy: A framework of analysis. In: O. Elgström and M. Smith (eds.) The European Union’s Roles in International Politics. Concepts and Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Aspinwall, M. (2002) Preferring Europe: Ideology and national preferences on European integration. European Union Politics 3 (1): 81–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aspinwall, M. (2007) Government preferences on European integration: An empirical test of five theories. British Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belyi, A.V. (2008) EU external energy policies: A paradox of integration. In: J. Orbie (ed.) Europe’s Global Role. External Policies of the EU. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Bilčík, V. (2010) Foreign and security policy preferences. In: D. Malová, M. Rybář, V. Bilčík, E. Láštic, Z. Lisoňová, M. Mišík and M. Pašiak (eds.) From Listening to Action? New Member States in the European Union. Bratislava, Slovakia: Devín Press.Google Scholar
  7. Caplanova, A., Orviska, M. and Hudson, J. (2004) Eastern European attitudes to integration with Western Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies 42 (2): 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carruba, C.J. (1997) Net financial transfers in the European Union: Who gets what and why? The Journal of Politics 59 (2): 469–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chafetz, G., Abramson, H. and Grillot, S. (1996) Role theory and foreign policy: Belarusian and Ukrainian compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Political Psychology 17 (4): 727–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christiansen, T., Falkner, G. and Jørgsen, K.E. (2002) Theorizing EU treaty reform: Beyond diplomacy and bargaining. Journal of European Public Policy 9 (1): 12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Copsey, N. and Haughton, T. (2009) The choices for Europe: National preferences in new and old member states. Journal of Common Market Studies 47 (2): 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Copsey, N. and Pomorska, K. (2010) Poland’s power and influence in the European Union: The case of its eastern policy. Comparative European Politics 8 (3): 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delvaux, B. and Guimaraes-Purokoski, A. (2008) Vertical division of competences between the European community and its member states in the energy field – Some remarks on the evolution of community energy law and policy. In: B. Delvaux, M. Hunt and K. Talus (eds.) EU Energy Law and Policy Issues. Rixensart, Belgium: Euroconfidentiel.Google Scholar
  14. Duleba, A. (2009) Poučenia z plynovej krízy v januári 2009. Analýza príčin vzniku, pravdepodobnosti opakovania a návrhy opatrení na zvýšenie energetickej bezpečnosti SR v oblasti dodávok zemného plynu. Bratislava: VC SFPA, http://www.sfpa.sk/dokumenty/publikacie/281, accessed 15 February 2012.
  15. Energy Regulatory Office. (2010) The 2009 Report on the Activities and Finances of the Energy Regulatory Office, http://www.eru.cz/user_data/files/vyrocni%20zpravy/anglicky/vyrocka09_aj.pdf, accessed 17 February 2012.
  16. Energy Regulatory Office in Poland. (2010) National Report to the European Commission, http://www.ure.gov.pl/download/2/77/National_Report_2010_ENG.pdf, accessed 17 February 2012.
  17. European Commission (EC). (2009) The January 2009 Gas Supply Disruption to the EU: An Assessment. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  18. European Parliament and the Council. (2009) Regulation no. 663/2009 establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy. Official Journal of the European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:200:0031:0045:EN:PDF, accessed 17 February 2012.
  19. Frank, C. (2008) Civilian power meets ‘instinctive’ atlanticist: Comparing German and Polish European Security and Defence Policies. Paper presented at the Conference Role Theory Research in International Relations? Conceptual Challenges and Political Promises; 28 September–1 October, Otzenhausen.Google Scholar
  20. Freyburg, T. and Richter, S. (2010) National identity matters: The limited impact of EU political conditionality in the Western Balkans. Journal of European Public Policy 17 (2): 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Green Paper. (2006) A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy (COM (2006) 105). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  22. Haghighi, S.S. (2008) Energy security and the division of competences between the European community and its member states. European Law Journal 14 (4): 461–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haughton, T. (2009) For business, for pleasure or for necessity: The Czech Republic’s choices for Europe. Europe–Asia Studies 61 (8): 1371–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holsti, K.J. (1970) National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly 14 (3): 233–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hug, S. and König, T. (2002) In view of ratification: Government preferences and domestic constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. International Organization 56 (2): 447–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koenig-Archibugy, M. (2004) Explaining government preferences for institutional change in EU foreign and security policy. International Organization 58 (1): 137–174.Google Scholar
  27. Král, D., Bartovic, V. and Řiháčková, V. (2009) The 2009 Czech EU Presidency: Contested Leadership at a Time of Crisis. Stockholm, Sweden: Sieps.Google Scholar
  28. Kratochvíl, P. and Kuchyňková, P. (2009) Between the return to Europe and the Eastern enticement: Czech relations to Russia. In: Z. Ludvig and G. Fóti (eds.) EU–Russian Relations and the Eastern Partnership. Budapest, Hungary: Institute for World Economics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  29. Krotz, U. (2002) National Role Conceptions and Foreign Policies: France and Germany Compared. Cambridge: Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. Working Paper 02.1.Google Scholar
  30. Láštic, E. (2010) Five years after: New member states in the European Union. Slovak Sociological Review 42 (1): 33–53.Google Scholar
  31. Malová, D. (2010) Introduction. In: D. Malová, M. Rybář, V. Bilčík, E. Láštic, Z. Lisoňová, M. Mišík and M. Pašiak (eds.) From Listening to Action: New Member States in the EU. Bratislava, Slovakia: Devín Press.Google Scholar
  32. Matláry, J.H. (1997) Energy Policy in the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mattila, M. (2004) Contested decisions: Empirical analysis of voting in the European Union Council of Ministers. European Journal of Political Research 43 (1): 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer, S. (2008) Path dependence and Commission activism in the evolution of the European Union’s external energy policy. Journal of International Relations and Development 11 (3): 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miklin, E. (2009) Government position on the EU services directive in the council: National interests or individual ideological preferences? West European Politics 32 (8): 943–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mišík, M. (2010) Security first: Energy policy in the new member states of the European Union. In: D. Malová, M. Rybář, V. Bilčík, E. Láštic, Z. Lisoňová, M. Mišík and M. Pašiak (eds.) From Listening to Action? New Member States in the European Union. Bratislava, Slovakia: Devín Press.Google Scholar
  37. Moravcsik, A. (1993) Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies 31 (4): 473–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  39. MPO. (2004) Státní energetická koncepce České republiky. Schválená uznesením vlády Českej republiky č. 211 z 10. marca 2004, http://download.mpo.cz/get/26650/46323/556503/priloha003.doc, accessed 16 March 2012.
  40. Nguyen, E.S. (2008) Drivers and brakemen: State decisions on the road to European Integration. European Union Politics 9 (2): 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peräkylä, A. (2008) Analyzing talk and text. In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Material. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Pointvogl, A. (2009) Perceptions, realities, concession – What is driving the integration of European energy policies? Energy Policy 37 (10): 5704–5716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Regulatory Office for Network Industries. (2010) Annual Report 2009. http://www.urso.gov.sk/doc/vs/VS2009.pdf, accessed 17 February 2012.
  44. Roberts, J. (2009) Energy challenges for Europe. In: A. Wenger, R.W. Orttung and J. Perovic (eds.) Energy and the Transformation of International Relations: Towards a New Producer–Consumer Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Roth, M. (2011) Poland as a policy entrepreneur in European external energy policy: Towards greater energy solidarity vis-à-vis Russia? Geopolitics 16 (3): 600–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rybář, M. (2011) National determinants of international preferences in post-communist Europe: The case of Slovakia in the European Union. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 44 (3): 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sweet, S.A. and Sandholtz, W. (1997) European integration and supranational governance. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (3): 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thorhallsson, B. (2006) The size of state in the European Union: Theoretical and conceptual perspectives. European Integration 28 (1): 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tucker, J. (2010) Polish Public Opinion Toward Russia in the Aftermath of Smolensk. PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo no. 111, http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/pepm_111.pdf, accessed 12 January 2012.
  50. Umbach, F. (2010) Global energy security and the implication for the EU. Energy Policy 38 (3): 1229–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verhoeff, E.C. and Niemann, A. (2011) National preferences and the European Union presidency: The case of German energy policy towards Russia. Journal of Common Market Studies 49 (6): 1271–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wyciszkiewicz, E. (ed.) (2009) From August war to January gas war: Implications for post-soviet energy landscape. In: Geopolitics of Pipelines. Energy Interdependence and Inter-state Relations in the Post-soviet Area. Warsaw, Poland: The Polish institute of international affairs.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matúš Mišík
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceComenius University in BratislavaBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations