The Effects of Europeanisation - Essay Example

?Drawing on observations from the Polish-German borderland, critically examine the effects which Europeanisation - or "EU-isation" - has had on the actual and/or perceived nature of borders and "borderness" in Eastern Europe. Introduction The effects that Europeanisation has had on the perceived nature of borderness in Eastern Europe will be critically examined in order to determine whether the Polish-German borderland has detrimentally impacted integration within the EU. An overview of Europeanisation will first be provided in order to provide the reader with an insight into what the process consists of. The concept and importance of borders will then be reviewed and a determination as to whether they prevent complete integration from being achieved will be made. Once this has been done, the impacts that Europeanisation has had upon the Polish-German borderland will then be highlighted and both the advantages and disadvantages of closed borders will be discussed. Applicable text books, journal articles and online databases will be accessed by conducting both a library and online search. Once the evaluation has been made, an appropriate conclusion will then be drawn, demonstrating that Europeanisation does significantly affect the borderness nature of Eastern Europe. Main Body Europeanisation is a process of change whereby a non-European subject adopts various European features. This has been defined as “a process involving; construction, diffusion and institutionalisation of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms and shared beliefs” (Cini, 2007: 407). The European features are initially defined and consolidated within the policy process of the EU and subsequently incorporated into domestic structures. This effectively creates a borderless world which was identified by Ohmae (1990: 172) when he stated that; “national borders have effectively disappeared and, along with them, the economic logic that made them useful lines of demarcation in the first place.” Despite this contention, borders are still greatly important in helping to develop regions that are divided by state boundaries and also for analysing modern geography relating to politics and economics (Nelles and Walther, 2011: 6). They also form part of an ideology and help to demonstrate the limits associated with territorial ownership and control (Herrschel, 2011: 173). They have a significance beyond economics, since borders in all areas of life affect the ways that people perceive themselves and their role in the world: “Borders are integral to human behaviour – they are a product of the need for order, control and protection in human life and they reflect our contending desires for sameness and difference, for a marker between ‘us’ and ‘them’.” (O’Dowd, 2002: 14-15). Borders are therefore vital in helping to distinguish different identifies, and yet since the 1989 Revolutions; borders within the EU have undergone some important transformations. Both the re-bordering and de-bordering of the EU has taken place and these processes vastly complicate the ways that people view their own local, regional and national identities. Whilst this proliferation of identities may seem contradictory, greater flexibility now exists for people to step outside both the mental and physical limitations of previous decades. As the example of the Russian-Finnish border has shown, some dimensions of border transformation are relatively easy to implement, while others remain relatively impervious to new rulings, even at the national and international level. This is because “boundaries are understood as institutions and symbols that are produced and reproduced in social practices and discourses” (Paasi, 1999:669). It is this level of symbolic meanings, passed on from person to person through social interaction that is so vital for the successful advance of Europeanisation. Without this level of social engagement to aid with transformation of the deeper significance attached to the border location, any amount of administrative action is not likely to achieve any lasting change. Europeanisation has had both a positive and negative effect upon the Polish-German borderland, however, since Poland and Germany have not developed into a fully integrated region (Kratke, 2007: 1). This has a detrimental impact upon the German side of the border since this area has undergone de-industrialisation, whilst the Polish side has improved economically (Nelles and Walther, 2011: 6). This illustrates the importance of full integration in the search for greater economic collaboration and whilst this was the one of the main objectives of Europeanisation, it has become apparent that barriers still exist. Thus, it has been stressed that “delimitation of the borderland area on the basis of the range of influence and economic relations distinguished by specific characteristics could be of basic significance” (Strubelt, 2009: 158). Nevertheless, this is likely to remain a controversial point since it is unclear in the literature whether the Polish-German borderland exists as a real entity or a political entity. It appears that Europeanisation continues to reduce the separating effect of borders so that a fully integrated free market can be established, and yet paradoxically defensive barriers continue to be increased (Herrschel, 2011: 174). This leads to much conflict and has resulted in this area of collaboration between Poland and Germany being described as an “unnatural and dysfunctional unit” (Ohmae, 1995: 42). Whether the borders of Eastern Europe will ever open up fully is unclear but given that international borders are one type of boundary that are used as barriers as opposed to bridges (Mingus, 2006: 577), it seems likely that some changes will be made if the EU is to become fully integrated. Nevertheless, because of the fears surrounding the threats to national sovereignty, it is likely that nation states will try to remain in a state of borderness for as long as possible. This is because the current regime model that is being employed across Eastern Europe has been deemed workable there. This rather traditional nation-state model remains intact and so its networks and structures are likely to remain the same. The success of this, however, may be dependent on the ability of these networks to “solve problems that cross national borders while avoiding the appearance of impinging upon national sovereignty” (Mingus, 2006: 577). This is a very tricky undertaking for Eastern European states to negotiate, since it involves both upholding and transgressing boundary limits both at the same time. Nonetheless, because of the importance of a single market within the EU, it is perceived as economically imperative that all borders are opened up. Supporters of Europeanisation argue that substantial advantages are created including the “strengthening of cultural diversity and regionalism and the development of a forward-looking and comprehensive European immigration and asylum policy” (Department of Political Studies, 2010: 1). Cross-border co-operation may be the solution because it does not entail actually having to de-border the boundaries of Eastern Europe. It has been recognised that state borders do have many important functions. The role of borders in the defence of state integrity is clearly one of these non-negotiable important functions. There is also considerable potential to exploit the special features that borders and border regions possess in the pursuit of other supra-national aims. Thus, borders are now being used in order to resolve many underlying issues that arise within the EU such as immigration, organised crime and environmental problems. Their continued their importance and usefulness even within a broad policy of Europeanisation is widely recognised. Therefore, whilst the creation of a single market is vital, it is also necessary for effective controls to be in place within the EU so that the border regions can maintain their role as a special place where sameness and difference come together. This requires cross-border co-operation which will potentially allow for “the discovery and furtherance of common interests and the acknowledgement of differences” (O’Dowd, 2010: 32). Whether this is ascertained in a peaceful or aggressive manner will tend to be dependent upon the “scope, quality and learning capacity of the cross-border co-operation” (O’Dowd, 2010: 32). Arguably, it seems as though the borderness nature of Eastern Europe may still have the potential to be an avenue for change, yet what these changes will be cannot be predetermined since there are problems associated with re-bordering and de-bordering. Yet in order for Europeanisation to be pursued into its goal of full integration into a single market, co-operation between the people on all sides of the many borders is necessary. Despite the rhetoric of many politicians, few believe that a fully integrated EU is in fact underway and that post-communist Eastern European countries are in the final stages of acquiring full EU membership. The reason for this is that the people in these countries perceive great economic benefit in membership on the one hand, but on the other hand they are held back by “old hatreds and mutual suspicions, language barriers, differences in religion and culture, and the legacy of communist regimes’ neglect of border regions” (Yoder, 2008: 90). Because of these all too human barriers that still exist, it is debatable whether more than a few halting steps towards Europeanisation will ever be achieved. Divides within Europe still exist and it is very difficult to determine how these divides can be overcome given the deep seated nature of the differences in culture, languages and belief systems that subsist. Essentially, co-operation appears to be the only way these problems can be overcome and this is why it has been widely encouraged. Hence, “cross-border co-operation helps lessen the disadvantages of the border, overcome the periphery status of the border regions and improve the living standards of people in the area” (Euroregion Neisse, 1996: 26). Provided that Germany and Poland co-operate with each other and embrace the changes created by Europeanisation, the disadvantages that currently persist will be eradicated and an improved relationship between the two nation states will be established. It is unlikely that co-operation between Germany and Poland will be easy, however, since it will be extremely difficult for each country to overcome the legacy in which the war has left. The building of these bridges will thus prove very problematic and the fears and sensitivities between the two countries will need to be dealt with appropriately so that European integration can take place (Yoder, 2008: 99). It has been pointed out, nonetheless, that the promotion of a mutual understanding and common goals will help to erode any fears and sensitivities that have been created (Yoder, 2008: 99). Since this is one of the main problems which stand in the way of integration, it is likely that the borders between Germany and Poland will be removed once these difficulties have been sufficiently dealt with. Consequently, it is evident from these findings that cross-border boundaries are the main stumbling blocks which stand in the way of a fully integrated EU and unless changes are made to the borders of Eastern Europe, the creation of a single market will continue to be stifled. This is quite absurd given the advantages of integration, yet it is believed by some that boundaries are “fading away in the post-modern, globalizing world” (Paasi, 2010: 678). Despite this, territoriality still occurs within modernised states and it remains to be seen whether this will ever be any different. This is because, boundaries exist as symbols of sovereignty which is something that nation states do not want taken away from them and if the removal of boundaries results in this, a lack of co-operation will be likely to ensue. Members of the EU are still reliant upon EU rules and principles, regardless as to whether their borders are open or closed. As such, similar structures are still being established within the EU and because of this, it could be said that the borders are in fact futile. Hence, Europeanisation affects all countries within the EU, including those within Eastern Europe. As a result of the influence the EU has on national legal systems, the features of the European Union are being incorporated into domestic structures. This ultimately creates an integrated union and given the advancement of globalisation, it seems as though borders within the EU are becoming something of the past. Evidently, the closed borders therefore seem applicable only to eradicate the problems of immigration, crime and environmental problems and as pointed out by Johnson (2009: 177); “Europe provides an excellent laboratory for exploring how border regions offer new spaces for governance, cultural interaction and economic development.” Thus, whilst there has been much critique surrounding the national boundaries of Eastern European countries, it seems as though the flexibilities that are existent within the EU help to advance the economy and highlight the importance of different identities. Arguably, it seems as though the boundaries that currently exist ought to be left alone since it would be difficult to establish how successful the removal of these would in fact be. There has been some debate about how effective cross-border collaboration has been along the former line between the West and the Eastern bloc. The creation of special collaboration areas has attracted considerable EU funding, and there are comprehensive multi-level governance systems supporting these developments (Blatter, 2001). The INTERREG programme was an early top-down initiative from the EU which was designed specifically to address interregional cooperation, realising that state borders are often hindrances to effective development because they interrupt the free pursuit of common interests. It started in 1989 and has been through four iterations, leading to the creation of a large variety of different types of activity all over Europe. Addressing the needs of regions along the old East/West border has been a main focus of these initiatives and there have been some notable successes. The special region between around Frankfurt/Oder in Germany and Slubice in Poland has achieved some notable successes. A jointly run University with locations in both cities has been developed, and there are administrative structures in place to help with mutual interests such as flood planning and disaster relief, since the river Oder is prone to flooding. These initiatives come at considerable cost, however, not least the very intensive level of governance and bureaucracy that comes with EU funded activity. These administrative structures have an interesting effect because they “invent” new spatial categories and relativise the borderness of the region in question in dual and ambiguous ways (Gualini, 2003: 49) It has been noted also with reference to many such collaborations that “even if the assumption that such spaces really are functioning, integrated economic entities is largely illusory and rooted in nothing more than policy-maker aspiration” (Deas and Lord, 2006: 1865). This suggests that the complete integration of nation states may not be a realisable goal, and that the main reason as to why integration is being promoted is because of the aspirations of policy makers. A more positive assessment has been made by those who look beyond the Westphalian nation-state system and try to imagine what kind of future political units might be in the making in places like Europe and the Americas where transborder activities are being encouraged and experimented with on a rather large scale. Ruggie (1993: 140) describes what has been happening in modern Europe recently as “the emergence of the first truly postmodern international political form.” From this point of view, the border regions of Europe are the heralds of a transformation that is only just beginning and will soon affect wider areas of the world. In this new form, nation states still have an important role to play, but there will be a shift away from purely territorial thinking. Increasingly modern capitalist activity consists of service industries which operate using modern technology in a virtual space that need not be, and often cannot be, pinned down to one particular geographical location. Workers are dispersed, and there can be multiple administrative headquarters anywhere in the world. These structures erode the importance of traditional borders and barriers. Modern problems such as ecological destruction and economic migration also transcend traditional nation state boundaries, and it has long been obvious in the EU that individual states are not able to solve these problems on their own. Some level of joint action is needed to deal with such large scale challenges. The postmodern political scene appears to operate both in physical spaces, akin to traditional territories and in more diffuse spaces that are to be envisaged either as flows of goods, services and people, or as virtual spaces that have no physical property at all. The interplay of all these dimensions creates a very complex multi-layering of identities for the people who navigate all these different kinds of spaces. In such a world the old bilateral arrangement of East and West with an impenetrable border between the two is simply unthinkable. Things have moved on considerably from this conception of international relations, and European border regions are carving out a new and more flexible transition area from one state to another. Words like “multiperspectival” and “pluralistic” are being used to describe political forms in these areas, and this appears to be the kind of international relations that the future will bring. Conclusion Overall, Europeanisation does have a significant impact upon the borderness nature of Eastern Europe. This is not just because European features are being integrated into both Poland and Germany making the perceived borderness somewhat less effective than it was in the Cold War period. It is true that structures are being created which had removed the barriers that once constituted the borders of Eastern Europe. These are being overlaid on top of existing state structures, however, and they are not likely to replace territorial kinds of sovereignty in any significant way. This is why many critics determine that the borders have not been removed and instead argue that Poland and Germany have not developed into a fully integrated region. As a result, many suggestions for the removal of these borders have been made so that a fully integrated system can be developed. Whilst complete integration does have many advantages, however, it has been questioned whether the Polish-German borderland exists as a real entity or a political entity. This has been explained in terms of the difference between administrative rhetoric and economic and social reality: it appears as though an integrated economy is merely a policy-maker aspiration since the current process has limited success on the ground. Therefore, whilst the creation of a single market continues to be an important part of EU policy, the kind of transformation that is possible in border regions should not be understood in purely economic and territorial terms. The transformation of these border regions should be understood as part of a much bigger global shift which embraces very important issues of human identity. Instead of single territorial allegiance, people are developing multiple layers of identity which allow for different conceptions of belonging. These layers of identity can and do co-exist simultaneously so that people retain some traditional and some new ways of interacting with political authorities. The EU superstructure is neither national, nor truly supranational, because it operates in devolved and local committees pursuing the interests of regional entities which have come together for a whole variety of different reasons beyond economic integration. The example of the collaboration that has taken place along the Polish-German borderland demonstrates how the borderness nature of Eastern Europe is very much still an avenue for change. However, it is extremely difficult to determine where these changes will lead in the longer term. There are intractable problems associated with both re-bordering and de-bordering while at the same time new multiperspectival dimensions appear to be embedding themselves on both sides of the remaining state borders. This change is not just about transforming from separate nation states into a joint EU common market or aligning former communist structures with capitalist ones: it involves considerably more than this, and appears to involve a whole new way of negotiating complex and layered political identities that are still in the process of evolution. References Blatter, J.K. (2001) Debordering the World of States: Towards a Multi-Level System in Europe and Multi-Polity System in North America Insights from Border Regions. European Journal of International Relations 7 (2), pp. 175-209. Cini, M. (2007) European Union Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition. Deas, I. and Lord, A. (2006) From a New Regionalism to an Unusual Regionalism? The Emergence of Non-Standard Regional Spaces and Lessons for the Territorial Reorganisation of the State, Urban Studies 43. Department of Political Studies. (2010) About the Conference, Borderless Europe, [Online] Available: http://www.borderlesseurope.pte.hu/index.php/about.html [13 December 2012]. Gualine, E. (2003) Cross-border Governance: Inventing Regions in a Trans-national Multi-level Polity, DISP 152, pp. 43-52. Herrschel, T. (2011) Borders in Post-Socialist Europe: Territory Scale Society, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Johnson, C. M. (2009) Cross-Border Regions and Territorial Restructuring in Central Europe, Room for More Transboundary Space, European Urban and Regional Studies, 16. Kratke, S. (2007) Metropolisation of the European Economic Territory as a Consequence of Incerasing Specialisation of Urban Agglomerations in the Knowledge Economy, European Planning Studies, 15 (1). Mingus, M. S. (2006) Transnationalism and Subnational Paradiplomacy: Are Governance Networks Perforating Sovereignty? International Journal of Public Administration, 29 (8). Nelles, J. and Walther, O. (2011) Changing European Borders: From Separation to Interface? An Introduction, Journal of Urban Research, [Online] Available: http://articulo.revues.org/1658 [13 December 2012]. O’Dowd, L. (2010) The Changing Significance of European Borders, Regional and Federal Studies, 12 (4), pp. 13-36. Ohmae, K. (1990) The Borderless World: Power and Strategies in the Interlinked Economy. London: Harper Collins. Ohmae, K. (1995) The End of the Region State: The Rise of Regional Economies. London: Harper Collins. Paasi, A. (2010) Boundaries as Social Practice and Discourse: The Finnish-Russian Border, Regional Studies, 33 (7), pp. 669-680. Ruggie, J.G. (1993) Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organization 47 (1) pp. 139-174. Strubelt, W. (2009) German Annual of Spatial Research and Policy 2008, Springer. Yoder, J. A. (2008) Bridging the European Union and Eastern Europe: Cross-Border Cooperation and the Euroregions, Regional & Federal Studies, 13 (3), pp. 90-106. Read More