Chapter 2: Post-Communist Transition Under the Umbrella of Uneven EUropeanisation: East Central Europe, the Baltic States and the Balkans

  • Milenko PetrovicEmail author


A quarter century after the collapse of East European communism, there is little doubt that the simultaneous transitions from communist dictatorships to multiparty democracy, and from a command economy to a market economy, have been successful almost exclusively in those states which were able to tie their post-communist reforms to the EU’s conditional offer of membership. However, the reasons why the opportunity for EU accession has not been used with the same effectiveness in all three regions of post-communist Europe to whom it was initially offered in the early 1990s remain far less obvious. While many scholars and political analysts tend to explain these reasons by primarily highlighting the different structural abilities of particular groups of states to adopt EU (“Western”) values and norms, and consequently meet EU accession conditions, this chapter focuses on the importance of “practical policy” measures and agent-driven actions.


European Union Foreign Direct Investment Foreign Direct Investment Inflow Foreign Assistance Western Balkan Country 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Balkaninside. (2014, April 15). Milorad Dodik: lack of consensus – obstacle to EU accession. Balkaninside. Accessed February 2016.
  2. Bandelj, N. (2008). From communists to foreign capitalists: the social foundations of foreign direct investment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bandelj, N. (2010). How EU integration and legacies mattered for foreign direct investment into central and eastern Europe. Europe-Asia Studies, 62 (3), 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BBC. (2015, October 25). Protesters call for Montenegro PM to step down. BBCNews. Accessed February 2016.
  5. Bechev, D. (2015, May 8) Breaking Macedonia’s vicious circle. EU Observer,
  6. Berend, T. (2001). The “crisis zone” revisited: Central and Eastern Europe in the 1990s. East European Politics and Societies, 15(2), 250–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bevan, A., & Estrin, S. (2004). The determinants of foreign direct investment into European transition economies. Journal of Comparative Economics, 32(4), 775–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bideleux, R. (2001). Europeanisation and the limits to democratisation in East Central Europe. In: G. Pridham and A. Ágh (Eds.), Prospects for democratic consolidation in East-Central Europe. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bogdani, A. (2015, June 9). Albanian justice system slammed as totally corrupt. BalkanInsight. Accessed February 2016.
  10. Cirtautas, A. M., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2010). Europeanisation before and after accession: conditionality, legacies and compliance. Europe-Asia Studies, 62(3), 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crampton, R. J. (1997 [1994]). Eastern Europe in the twentieth century and after (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Darden, K., & Grzymała-Busse, A. (2006). The great divide: literacy, nationalism, and the communist collapse. World Politics, 59(1), 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dimitrova, A. (2002). Enlargement, institution-building and the EU’s administrative capacity requirement. West European Politics, 25(4), 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekiert, G. (1996). The state against society. Political crises and their aftermath in East Central Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ekiert, G. (2003). Patterns of postcommunist transformation in Central and Eastern Europe. In: E. Grzegorz & S. E. Hanson (Eds.), Capitalism and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. Assessing the legacy of communist rule (pp. 89–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. EU General Affairs Council. (1997). Council conclusions on the application of conditionality with a view to developing a coherent EU-strategy for the relations with the countries in the region, 29–30 April, Annex III.Google Scholar
  17. EU Foreign Affairs Council. (2014, April 14). Council conclusions on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  18. EU General Affairs and External Relations Council. (2003, June 16). The Thessaloniki agenda for the Western Balkans: moving towards European integration. Luxembourg: Council Conclusions, Annex A.Google Scholar
  19. EU General Affairs Council. (2012, February 28). Council conclusions on enlargement and the stabilisation and association process. Brussels.Google Scholar
  20. EurActiv. (2012, November 2). Bulgaria vetoes Macedonia’s EU accession talks. Accessed February 2016.
  21. EUROPEAID. (2015). Evaluation of PHARE financial assistance to Bulgaria (BG), Cyprus (CY), Czech Republic (CZ), Estonia (EE), Hungary (HU), Latvia (LV), Lithuania (LT), Malta (MT), Poland (PL), Romania (RO), Slovakia (SK), Slovenia (SI), Final Report. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  22. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. (various years). Transition report. London: EBRD.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission. (2005, October 3). Negotiation framework [with Croatia], Luxemburg. Accessed February 2016.
  24. European Commission. (2006, September 26). Monitoring report on the state on preparedness for EU membership – Bulgaria and Romania, COM (2006) 549 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission. (2014, October 8). Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2014–15, COM (2014) 700 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  26. European Commission. (2015a, November 10). Bosnia and Herzegovina report. Commission Staff Working Document, SWD (2015) 214 Final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  27. European Commission. (2015b, November 10). The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Report. Commission Staff Working Document, SWD (2015) 214 Final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  28. European Council. (1993, June 21–22). Presidency conclusions. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  29. European Council. (2002, December 12–13). Presidency conclusions. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  30. European Council. (2006, December 14–15). Presidency conclusions. Brussels.Google Scholar
  31. European Council. (2011, December 9). Presidency conclusions. Brussels.Google Scholar
  32. European Union. (2016). External action service website. Brussels. Accessed February 2016.
  33. Fish, M. S. (1998). Mongolia: democracy without prerequisites. Journal of Democracy, 9(3), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fish, M. S. (2001). The inner Asian anomaly: Mongolia’s democratization in comparative perspective. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 34, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Freedom House. (various years). Nations in transit. Accessed February 2016.
  36. Gateva, E. (2015). European union enlargement conditionality. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grabbe, H. (2006). The EU’s transformative power: Europeanization through conditionality in Central and Eastern Europe. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grabbe, H. (2014). Six lessons of enlargement ten years on: the EU’s transformative power in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52, 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grabbe, H., Gerald, K., & Korski, D. (2010, May). Beyond wait-and-see: the way forward for EU Balkan policy. Policy Brief, European Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
  40. Gros, D., & Steinherr, A. (2004). Economic transition in Central and Eastern Europe (2nd updated ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hopkins, V. (2012, July 5) Montenegro: mafia state in the EU neighbourhood. Open Democracy. Accessed February 2016.
  42. Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations. Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster,Google Scholar
  44. (2015, November). Dodik: EU membership might not be the best path for BiH. Accessed February 2016.
  45. Janos, A. C. (2000). East Central Europe in the modern world. The politics of the borderlands from pre-to postcommunism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Janos, A. C. (2001). From eastern empire to western hegemony: East Central Europe under two international regimes. East European Politics and Societies, 15(2), 221–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kitschelt, H. (2003). Accounting for post communist regime diversity: what counts as a good cause? In: E. Grzegorz & S. E. Hanson (Eds.), Capitalism and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. Assessing the legacy of communist rule (pp. 49–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Knaus, G., & Cox, M. (2004). Bosnia and Herzegovina: Europeanisation by decree. In: J. Batt (Ed.), The Western Balkans: moving on (pp. 55–68), Chaillot Paper, No. 70. Paris: Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar
  49. Lavigne, M. (1999 [1995]). The economics of transition: From socialist economy to market economy (2nd ed.). Houndmills, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mayhew, A. (1998). Recreating Europe. The European union’s policy towards Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. McFaul, M. (2002). The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship. Noncooperative transitions in the postcommunist world. World Politics, 54(2), 212–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Petrovic, M. (2009). (What about) the further enlargement of the EU? In between European enlargement fatigue and Balkan instability challenges. Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 1(2), 39–58.Google Scholar
  53. Petrovic, M. (2013). The democratic transition of post-communist Europein the shadow of communist differences and an uneven Europeanisation. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petrovic, M., & Klatt, G. (2015). The European union and its post-communist neighbours: EU enlargement and the European neighbourhood policy. In: N. Witzleb, A. M. Arranz & P. Winand (Eds.), The European union and global engagement: institutions, policies and challenges (197–215). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  55. Petrovic, M., & Smith, N. (2013). In Croatia’s slipstream or on an alternative road? Assessing the objective case for the remaining Western Balkan states acceding into the EU. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 13(4), 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Phinnemore, D. (2006). Beyond 25 – the changing face of EU enlargement: commitment, conditionality and the constitutional treaty. Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 8(1), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Phinnemore, D. (2010). And we’d like to thank…Romania’s integration into the European union. European Integration, 32(3), 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pippan, C. (2004). The rocky road to Europe: The EU’s stabilisation and association process for the Western Balkans and the principle of conditionality. European Foreign Affairs Review, 9(2), 219–245.Google Scholar
  59. Pop-Eleches, G., & Levitz, P. (2010). Monitoring, money and migrants: countering post-accession backsliding in Bulgaria and Romania. Europe-Asia Studies, 62(3), 461–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Poznatov, M. (2015, July 10). Merkel reassures Serbia during Belgrade vist. Accessed February 2016.
  61. Pridham, G. (2001). Rethinking regime change theory and international dimension of democratisation: ten years after in East-Central Europe. In: G. Pridham & A. Ágh (Eds.), Prospects for democratic consolidation in East-Central Europe. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Pridham, G. (2005). Designing democracy. EU enlargement and regime change in post-communist Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  63. Raik, K. (2004). EU accession of Central and Eastern European countries: democracy and integration as conflicting logic. East European Politics and Societies, 18(4), 567–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roeder, P. G. (2004). The triumph of nation-states: lessons from the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. In: M. Michael & K. Stoner-Weiss (Eds.), After the collapse of communism. Comparative lessons of transition (pp. 21–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schimmelfennig, F. (2008). EU political accession conditionality after enlargement: consistency and effectiveness. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(6), 918–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schimmelfennig, F., Engert, S., Knobel, H. (2006). International socialization in Europe: European organizations, political conditionality and democratic change. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sedelmeier, U. (2014). Anchoring democracy from above: The European union and democratic backsliding in Hungary and Romania after accession. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Seroka, J. (2008). Issues with regional reintegration of the Western Balkans. Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 10(1), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  70. Svejnar, J. (2002). Transition economies: performance and challenges. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Transparency International. (various years). Corruption perceptions index. Berlin: Transparency International.Google Scholar
  72. Turnock, D. (1989). Eastern Europe: an economic and political geography. London and New York: Rutledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vachudova, M. A. (2005). Europe undivided. Democracy, leverage, and integration after communism. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Vachudova, M. A. (2014). EU leverage and national interests in the Balkans: the puzzles of enlargement ten years on. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52, 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CanterburyCanterburyNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations