Transcript Vulnerabilities, Accession Hangovers and the Presidency Role

Vulnerabilities, Accession Hangovers and the
Presidency Role: Slovakia, Slovenia and the
Czech Republic’s Choices for Europe
Tim Haughton
University of Birmingham
SFPA/Katedra politologie, Bratislava
8 February 2010
Key underlying questions

What shapes an EU Member State’s choices on
a range of policy areas?

Why do some states seem much more
enthusiastic about integration in some areas
than others?

To what extent is the process of National
Preference Formation (NPF) of the New Member
States different from longer-established
members?
Why look at NPF in New EU MS?

Existing literature mostly looks at OMS

Most scholarly discussion of NMS has focused on
accession and conditionality, but what explains their
preferences at the European level as MS?

But also examining the process of NPF in NMS also
illuminates the dynamics of domestic politics





inc. power and influence of societal groupings etc.
questions of state capacity
Legacies of communism, post-communist transition and the
consequences of the accession process
Insights into future direction of EU
Feeds into theoretical debates about what drives integration
and broader debates about preferences
National Preference Formation
Various explanations used in the literature:

Unique historical experiences (George, Paterson etc)

Size (Archer and Nugent)

Public opinion (Nguyen; Hooghe and Marks)

Dependency (Trade and EU-funds) (Stone Sweet &
Sandholtz; Aspinwall)

Ideology (Aspinwall)

Societal interests (Moravcsik)

Vulnerabilities and perceived weakness (Copsey and
Haughton, 2009; Haughton, 2009)
Focus of study: Choice of Countries
 1.

 2.

Ideology
Govts of different ideological hue have held reins of
power
Societal interests
Slovenia’s history of deliberative democracy
 3.
Presidency of European Council
 4. Lisbon/Constitutional Treaty


Very different experiences in the three states
Although presidency can be very unusual time, does
throw lots of issues into sharp relief
Focus of study: Policy Areas
Broad Policy Area
Specific Element
Case Study
Economic
Liberalization
Harmonization
Services Directive/Laval/
Viking
Tax Harmonization
Distributive Politics
Budget/EU funds
Wider Europe
Enlargement
External
Institutional
Completion of integration
Lisbon/Constitutional
Treaty
Euro entry
Slovenia’s Choices for Europe
Policy Areas
Position
Changes/Variety?
Services
Directive/Laval/Viking
Tax Harmonization
Supportive of
Liberalization
Opposition
Not really (unions)
Budget/EU funds
Support – Give us
More!
Enlargement
Enthusiastic
Support for WB
Support
Some cooling as
realization may be a
net contribution
soon
Dec 2008 – blocking
Croatia
Not really (just Zares
over extent of
debate)
Lisbon/Constitutional
Treaty
No
Slovakia’s Choices for Europe
Policy Areas
Position
Changes/Variety?
Services
Directive/Laval/Viking
Tax Harmonization
Supportive of
Liberalization
Opposition
Not really
Budget/EU funds
Support – Give us
More!
Support
Enlargement
Lisbon/Constitutional
Treaty
Euro entry
Support
Support
No, but Fico did wobble
in 2006
No change
No change
Christian Democrat
reservations
Few disagreements over
timing /Fico wobble
Cz R’s Choices for Europe
Policy Areas
Position
Changes/Variety?
Services
Directive/Laval/Viking
Tax Harmonization
Supportive of
Liberalization
Opposition
Not really
Budget/EU funds
Support – Give us
More!
Support
No change
Conflictual views
Yes, amongst key ODS
politicians
Wide variety of
opinion
Enlargement
Lisbon/Constitutional
Treaty
Euro entry
Conflictual views
Not really
No change
Economic Preferences

If ideology key to NPF might expect changes in all
three cases
 Ideology – not absent


Europe without barriers
Dzurinda on the Services Directive
However – change not stability of prefs
 Powerful societal interests?




Topolanek’s govt and energy liberalization –CEZ –altho
linked to dependences
Fico’s opposition to tax harmonization – foreign
business lobby –although vulnerabilities
Weak unions – or just focus on domestic politics?
External Preferences
Support for Enlargement espec to WB:
– some element in the Czech
case (Klaus and Svoboda)
 Ideology
 Trade


and business links
imp for Slovenia: top list of priorities for
presidency
Decision to block negotiations for Croatia in
Dec 2008 due to deeper set of motivations
Institutional preferences
– yes on the catholic
conservative right in all three cases
 Ideology
 SK



and Lisbon Treaty
Experience of 2003-4 IGC – decision to
‘retreat to the bench’ (Bilcik and Haughton,
2010)
Instrumentalization of Lisbon ratification
Fico welcomed decision to launch new IGC in
2007, but his priority eurozone entry
Institutional Preferences (cont)
Czech Rep:

Support of CSSD leader Paroubek rooted in
social democratic belief in cooperation
 Ideologically-based criticism of Lisbon Treaty of
ODS Senators
 Klaus couldn’t contain glee when Irish voted no in
Oct 2009
However Topolanek govt remained committed to
ratify because:
 More pragmatic than ideological
 Presidency effect
Completion of integration
Imp for Slovakia:
 Valence issue
interests – in 2006 Fico’s publicly
voiced doubts – impact on koruna
 Business
– fear of ‘capital flight and
devaluation’ (Gould, 2009)
 Vulnerability
 Link
here to deeper sense of vulnerability
associated with SK’s complicated accession
– preference sublimation/entrapment?
The Presidency Effect - SI + CZ
 Raised
profile of European issues
 Changes
 Affected
in institutional architecture
stance of key politicians
– preparations for a gaffe-free presidency
cast long shadow over SI – fostered
consensus
 SI
Vulnerabilities and Weaknesses

Vulnerability vs dependency:



Dependency is narrower concept which focuses on
economics
Perceived weakness not just about eco stats
All of the key priorities of the 3 states (liberal
internal market, energy security, opposition to
tax harmonization, further enlargement and flow
of EU funds) can be explained.
2

components:
economic and the perceived place
Economic
4 measures of vulnerability:
 Net recipient/net beneficiary
 Openness
 Trade
 Debt
of economy
dependency on EU-27
to GDP
 Bring together in composite measure
EU Dependency: Net Recipients and Net
Contributors (2007)
Greece
Lithuania
Portugal
Latvia
Estonia
Hungary
Ireland
Poland
Slovakia
Czech Rep
Million EUR
+5436.4
+793.1
+2474.1
+488.7
+226.2
+1605.7
+671.8
+5135.7
+617.7
+656.4
%GNI
+2.43%
+2.95%
+1.58%
+2.55%
+1.54%
+1.72%
+0.42%
+1.75%
+1.17%
+0.55%
EUR per capita 2007**
+485
+236
+233
+215
+169
+160
+153
+135
+114
+64
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Romania
Italy
France
Austria
UK
Germany
Sweden
Denmark
+335
+88.5
+595.6
-2016.8
-3001.5
-563.7
-4168.2
-7420.2
-995.5
-604.9
+1.17%
+0.27%
+0.51%
-0.13%
-0.16%
-0.21%
-0.21%
-0.30%
-0.29%
-0.26%
+44
+44
+28
-34
-47
-68
-68
-90
-108
-111
Openness of Economy
Sum of Imp + Exp of G&S/GDP (%) (2008)
Lux
315
Netherlands
177
SK
168
Estonia
146
Cz Rep
144
Bulg
141
Hung
139
Slovenia
137
Lithuania
117
Germany
86
Poland
83
UK
55
France
54
Perceived place
 Much
harder to quantify
 Vulnerability



of labels:
SI – liminal state; seen as ‘Balkan’, ‘former
Yugoslav’ etc.
‘Insecurity discourse’ in Slovakia – link to no
at Lux in 1997
Fainter echo in Czech case
4 vulnerabilities
History of 20th C: benefits of European cooperation and being seen as part of Western
European club of established democracies
2. Size – dependent on neighbours not just for
security, but for economics
1.
•
Klaus et al EU as a ‘marriage of convenience’ not a
‘marriage of love’ (Braun, 2008)
EU as a protective umbrella vs harsh rains of
globalization
4. Lack of power and voice in multinational
organization –Benes decrees (Fico and Klaus)
3.
Conclusions

Accession hangover – time and effort on
accession – still coming to terms with
membership

Presidency effect in cases of SI and CZ

Vulnerabilities = key, but bases of
vulnerabilities not all set in stone – what
happens when/if become net contributors?

Economic crisis and vulnerabilities – will this
change stances?
Future Avenues for Research
 More
policy areas and across all EU-27
 More
on the presidency effect
– largely a period of healthy
economic growth – how might global
economic downturn affect NPF?
 2004-8/9