A RT I C L E

Europeanization or
Globalization?

gsp

173

A Framework for Empirical Research (with some Evidence from

the Italian Case)

PA O L O G R A Z I A N O
Centre for Comparative Political Research, Bocconi University, Italy

a b s t r a c t Globalization and Europeanization have been increasingly

fashionable terms in the past years. Nevertheless, often their use has
been somewhat loose and they have been considered as equivalents in
exerting external pressures on national welfare states. Moving from the
definition of the two processes, the article illustrates the different
features of globalization and Europeanization, and provides and tests
an analytical framework for the understanding of the institutional
effects of the processes. In the first part of the article, the two political
phenomena are defined and an analytical framework based on three
dimensions (market orientation, mode of governance and decisionmaking style) is offered. In the second part, a closer look at the Italian
case is provided. The empirical analysis shows that Europeanization
might act as an antidote to globalization: not only does it promote
different policy goals but also it displays institutional effects that
globalization is not able to determine.
k e y wo r d s cohesion policy, Europeanization, globalization, Italy, social
policy

Introduction
In order to attempt to compare and to assess the nature of globalization and
Europeanization in European countries, it is important to provide clear and
potentially solid definitions that will enable us to verify on the one hand the
adequateness of the concepts used, and on the other the links between
global pressures and domestic policy changes. In general, in the literature
the political effects of Europeanization and globalization have not been
Global Social Policy Copyright 2003
SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, ca and New Delhi)
vol. 3(2): 173194. [1468-0181 (200308) 3:2; 173194; 034078]

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

174

Global Social Policy 3(2)

distinguished very clearly; furthermore, both the globalization literature (see

Globalization section below) and the Europeanization literature (see
Europeanization section below) have not been in communication very
much. Also focusing more on the social policy research area, the distinction
between the two above-mentioned phenomena has not been very clear.1
Therefore, the main aim of this article is to provide an analytical framework
that enables a distinction not only between such phenomena but also
between the institutional effects of globalization and Europeanization,
offering a first empirical test with respect to a specific social policy (cohesion
policy) in a specific European Union country (Italy).
The article is organized in the following way. In the first part, the two
phenomena (globalization and Europeanization) are defined, and the need
for a conceptual clarification is stressed. In the second part, a closer look at
the Italian case is provided, with the attempt to highlight the dimensions of
political globalization and Europeanization. The Italian case shows that
Europeanization might act as an antidote to globalization: it not only
promotes different policy goals but it also displays institutional effects that
globalization is not able to determine in the EU member states. Evidence
from cohesion policy illustrates that Europeanization is contributing to
strengthen the national government vis-a-vis other political institutions
(parties and parliament) and frame policies that aim to counter the negative
integration pursued by globalization. In the last part of the article, the
implications of the empirical findings are discussed, the basic argument
being that Europeanization operates as a rationalization factor in those
countries (i.e. the Southern member states of the EU) that have been
latecomers to building both the nation state and its democratic foundations,
while globalization mainly has an indirect effect limiting both the cognitive
and normative orientations of national policy makers.

Definitions and Comparing Concepts

G L O B A L I Z AT I O N

Globalization has been used as a buzzword ... reflecting an important if yet

poorly understood reality (Rhodes, 2000). It is by now common knowledge
that over the past 25 years the network of trading relations, the globalization
of production (in particular, multinational corporations) and the growth of
foreign direct investment (FDI) have grown to unprecedented levels (see
Held et al., 1999). There has been much debate concerning the apparent or
real novelty of such profound internationalization, as some authors have
pointed out that the degree of global economic and financial interactions
was quite similar in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Hirst and
Thompson, 1996). Nevertheless, if we consider the dimensions of
economic globalization (extensity, intensity and impact; see Held et al.,

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

Graziano: Europeanization or Globalization?

1999: 1501) it is difficult to disagree with scholars who say that although
there exist important continuities with previous phases of globalization,
contemporary patterns of globalization constitute a distinctive historical
form which is itself a product of a unique conjucture of social, political,
economic and technological forces (Held et al., 1999: 429).
For other authors writing in a more sociological perspective, globalization
has mainly involved a cultural dimension and the work of Robertson (1992),
Beck (1997) and Bauman (1998) moves rather in that direction. Robertson
(1992) focuses mainly on the cultural influence of the transnationalization of
communications and its impact on national societies, individuals, the world
system of societies and mankind as a whole.2
Much less attention by far has been given to the political dimension of
globalization. In fact, very few have focused on the internationalization/
globalization of politics whereas much attention has been devoted to the
internationalization/globalization of national economies.3 But as Michelle
Beyeler has rightly pointed out: Globalization ... clearly involves a political
institutional dimension, which is often hidden behind the economic
outcomes that are measured (Beyeler in this issue, p. 159).
In broad terms, political globalization can be seen as a process of
construction on a supranational level and diffusion in national political
systems of global policies and institutions. It is a quite general but useful
definition because it enables one to focus on the politically salient elements
of the even broader process of economic and cultural internationalization
that often goes under the globalization.
Taking a closer look at the nature and the globalization politics within
Europe, it is possible to realize that what is often considered as deriving
from global political trasformations might very well originate instead from
European political trasformations, which have been increasingly important
over the past two decades.4 In fact, for most European countries, the
changes related to globalization cannot be considered apart from those
related to the regionalization represented by European integration
(Schmidt, 1999a: 174). This does not imply that European integration was
strengthened in order to oppose and confront globalization. In fact, there
does not seem to be much evidence of a voluntary and acknowledged
acceleration of European integration as a response to globalization; as Ross
puts it globalization issues, when present, were usually combined with other
priorities and concerns (Ross, 1998: 174). From a more legal perspective,
... europeanization and globalization are both friends and rivals. EU law is an
expression, a means, and an outcome of europeanization. At the same time certain
aspects of EU law ... respond to and encourage the development of global
economic networks, which are among the basic features of economic
globalization. EU law thus is an integral part of global economic networks. But
these networks have contradictory effects on the EU ... Europeanization and

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

175

176

Global Social Policy 3(2)

globalization thus are complementary, partly overlapping, mutually reinforcing,
but also competing processes. (Snyder, 1999: 59)

Nevertheless, looking at the processes and their political effects, one can
realize that during the 1990s Europeanization has increasingly meant, from
a public policy perspective, trying to control and respond to globalization.
As Schmidt has pointed out, more recently Europeanization has acted both
as a conduit for global forces and as a shield against them, opening member
states up to international markets and competition at the same time that they
protect them through monetary integration and the single market (Schmidt,
1999a: 172). In other words, the intensification of the political dimension of
the European integration process has brought European decision makers to
integrate the EU in the world economy (promoting competition and
therefore acting as a facilitator of globalization) but also to design new
policies (such as cohesion policy and the European Employment Strategy,
and therefore acting as an antidote to globalization) aimed at the protection
of what is perceived as a growing European social model.
E U R O P E A N I Z AT I O N

The debate on Europeanization is much more recent (mid-1990s). Until the

early 1990s scholars focused more on the process of European integration.
Even if Anderssen and Eliassen had already talked about europeification in
1993, it is only in recent years that the national dimension of European
integration and the differences of national,5 and regional,6 responses to this
integration have been given greater analytical centrality. In this literature,
the unit of analysis are not European institutions and the European political
space but rather European domestic policy and the relationship between
EU policies and national institutions and policies.
The first definition presenting some empirical orientation has been
provided by Risse, Cowles and Caporaso (2001). These authors consider
Europeanization as the emergence and development at the European level
of a distinct political system, a set of political institutions that formalizes and
routinizes interactions among the actors, and the growth of policy networks
specializing in the creation of authoritative rules (Risse et al., 2001: 1). Such
a complex definition is not completely satisfactory. As Radaelli rightly points
out, policy networks are taken as a matter of faith. [Instead] their existence
and influence is a matter of empirical (not definitional!) analysis (Radaelli,
2000: 3). Furthermore, there are non-European political institutions that
formalize and routinize the interactions among actors; for example,
national institutions (for the Italian case, see Ferrera and Gualmini, 1999)
play a role. Following the analysis provided by Morlino (1999) and Radaelli
(2000), I argue that in order to unpack the concept, the dimensions of
Europeanization need to be stated clearly, as have been the dimensions of
globalization (Held et al., 1999).

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

Graziano: Europeanization or Globalization?

Europeanization, therefore, can be broadly defined as a set of two

intertwined processes: the first one is a process through which national
political, social and economic forces give birth to a new European
supranational political and institutional setting; the second one is a process
through which EU political, social and economic dynamics become an
increasingly important part of the domestic political system. In other (and
simpler) words, Europeanization can be defined as a process of construction
and diffusion of European institutions and policies in European countries.
Furthermore, it is important to distinguish the processes from their
effects. Looking at the effects, and discussing the Europeanization of
cohesion policy in Italy in more detail, I will show that there is a strong
potential for institutional transformation linked to such process, whereas
globalization acts in a much more automatic, uncontrolled and indirect
manner.
For the sake of conceptual clarity, I shall use a comparative framework that
should provide a better, well-grounded analytical comparison between the
two processes. The dimensions of comparison, based mainly on secondary
literature, are the following: market orientation (market making vs. market
correcting), modes of governance (multilevel vs. hierarchical and
intergovernmental) and decision-making (open/closed). I will discuss the
three dimensions separately. In the next section, I shall test the hypothesis
that such a difference empirically exists with respect to a selected policy area
(cohesion policy) and EU member state (Italy).

The Dimensions of Comparison

M A R K E T O R I E N TAT I O N

As pointed out in the previous paragraphs, Europeanization must not be

confused with European economic integration (Radaelli, 2000).7 Nevertheless, one should point out the different types of integration which constitute
the core of globalization and Europeanization.8 In the case of globalization,
the process involves mainly an example of integration provided by the
building of a global market; in fact, due to global constraints, governments
[are] pressured to ease restrictions on foreign trade by slashing protectionist
tariffs and non-tariff barriers ... Past requirements, such as local equity
participation, employment creation, capital reinvestment, the use of local
resources, or the transfer of technology, [are] replaced by generous
incentives to attract foreign capital (Gupta, 1997: 4). In fact, the most
important components of IMF programs are fiscal and monetary austerity
and exchange rate adjustment (Pieper and Taylor, 1998: 39). Furthermore,
International Monetary Fund (IMF) policy recommendations focus on
labour tax reduction and they do not provide a broader policy context where
incentives and subventions for losers are taken into account. In addition,

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

177

178

Global Social Policy 3(2)

the World Bank in the 1980s moved alongside the IMF into the business of
providing balance-of-payments support to countries afflicted by the debt
crisis and falling export prices, adding newly invented structural adjustment
loans to its project credits (Pieper and Taylor, 1998: 40).9 Also, one of the
main explicit goals of the WTO is to help producers of goods and services,
exporters, and importers conduct their business (WTO, 2000: 1).
Therefore, the WTO aims explicitly at lowering tarifs, regardless of setting
rules for the social dimension of integration. Consumers and social
interests, moreover, are not even mentioned in the various working papers of
the WTO.
On the other hand, Europeanization has meant and still means more than
what has been described as negative integration or market making.
Already in the Preamble to the Treaty of Rome there is a clear statement
that the EC considers social and economic cohesion among its most
important goals. The Structural Funds have represented a distinguished
form of relevant positive integration offering consistent financial resources
aimed at that goal and representing a first step towards the building of a
social dimension of European integration (AA.VV., 2002; Anderson, 1995).
Although positive integration, consisting in redistributive policies and the
promotion of a social dimension in the EU treaties, is very difficult to
implement (Scharpf, 1994), the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty,
the Luxembourg Special Council on Employment in 1997 and the
Structural Funds strategy within Agenda 2000 pay much more attention to
socio-economic development and to the need to implement socio-economic
cohesion: in short, to the correction of market failures. In a recent document
of the Commission it is stressed quite clearly that the EU aims for full
employment as an objective of economic and social policy with the mediumterm target of cutting unemployment to levels in the best-performing
countries and that the EU must catch the wind of economic upturn and
generate substainable growth over a long period. To achieve this the EU
must pursue a systematic policy of modernisation that delivers structural
reforms, accelerates absorption of new technology, improves European
research, promotes the reform of social welfare, health and pensions, and
creates e-literate workforce whose ideas find faster expression in the
marketplace (European Commission, 2000b: 1; see also European
Commission, 1997, 1999).
In summary, although there is broadly speaking a growing awareness of
the need for a social pillar in the global economy (ILO, 2000: 1), and there
are signs of such awareness among global institutions (United Nations
Development Programme [UNDP], 1999), the primary global institutions
are still mainly focused on a market making strategy, whereas there is an
increasing salience of the social dimension through which European
institutions are confronting global pressures and enhancing the elements of
market correction (see also Ferrera et al., 2000).

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

Graziano: Europeanization or Globalization?

MODES OF GOVERNANCE

The predominant pattern of governance within the global setting is

intergovernmental and scarcely institutionalized. Scholars of international
relations who have done research on this matter are very clear on this point.
As Krasner puts it: the international system is weakly institutionalized
(Krasner, 1999: 49). Furthermore, according to one of the most important
research projects on decision-making in international organizations, the
latter could provide only the services that governments would accept, and
the levels were determined by the decisions of a few of the most important
powerful states (Cox and Jacobson, 1973: 434; see also Reinalda and
Verbeek, 1998). (A few) national governments are still the main actors of the
international political arena, although they are not capable of keeping
growing economic globalization under control (Voronkov, 1995: 12). Until
recently, subnational actors and several weak national governments have
been neglected both in the North and in the South of the world (Adams and
Gupta, 1997: 12). Moreover, international institutions are quite fragmented,
since there is very little coordination among the different institutions such as
the IMF, the World Bank, the OCDE, etc. (Held, 1999: 260, Italian
translation). Finally, there is no global democratic representation: in fact,
the UN and other international organizations are formed by representatives
of national governments who show quite uneven statuses and are not directly
elected by world population (Bourantonis and Weiner, 1995). Therefore,
representation is indirect and far from the electorates.
Instead, the recent evolution of EU institutions has made the European
political organization more and more similar to what has been termed a
Europolity (Marks et al., 1996), or, a particular political system where
European institutions have started to erode the sovereignty of the nation
state within a multilevel pattern of governance (Hooghe, 1996; Marks, 1992,
1993; Marks et al., 1996), giving birth to a system of shared sovereignty
(Wallace, 1999). Although intergovernmentalist bargaining is quite
important in Europe (Milward, 1992; Moravcsik, 1998), evidence from
policy analysis has shown that Europeanization implies an increasing sharing
of sovereignty and competencies which takes place in a quasi-federal
institutional setting where horizontal and vertical networks have been
established and more recently reinforced (Kohler-Koch and Eising, 1999;
Marks et al., 1996; Temmel, 1998). Over the past 20 years, decision-making
in Europe has not only been an outcome of a two-level game between
supranational and national actors (Putnam, 1988), but it has also given birth
to a multilevel governance system (Hooghe, 1996; Marks, 1992, 1993) where
subnational actors have begun to play a significant role. Furthermore, recent
documents of the European Commission DG Employment and Social
Affairs are explicitly devoted to the building or consolidation of a local
dimension of development and employment (AA.VV., 2002; European
Commission, 2000a); this particular attention to the subnational levels of

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

179

180

Global Social Policy 3(2)

governments shows that the EU institutional system takes much more into
consideration the political preferences of local territories than global
institutions such as the IMF, WTO and the World Bank.
DECISION-MAKING

As Susan Strange pointed out, globalization all too often ... is a polite
euphemism for the continuing Americanisation of consumer tastes and
cultural practices (Strange, 1996: xiii; see also Latouche, 1996) and the
capacity of governing global transformations democratically is very weak
(Held et al., 1999). At the international level, not only are governmental
actors from poor countries of minor importance, but also social actors who
are far from being taken into consideration in the decision-making process.
WTO decision-making is considered particularly closed and nontransparent not only by anti-globalization activists (see Public Citizen, 1998)
but also by member states such as Canada and the EU. In a recent Joint
Statement on the WTO, the EU and Canada stressed the importance of
transparency inside and outside of the WTO and the need for a dialogue
with individuals and organizations outside of government ... in order to
ensure its efficient operation, [and] the effective participation by developing
countries (EU/Canada Summit, 2000: 1; see also European Commission,
2000a).
Turning to how public policies are formulated and implemented at the
European level, one sees that the process consists in general of a procedure
involving many governmental and non-governmental actors, with different
degrees of influence (see Bomberg, 1998; Moravcsik, 1998). Although, as has
been stated above, this does not imply that all actors have similar powers, it
does imply instead that the decision-making arena is more open, fluid and
transparent than the decision-making arena of global institutions. In fact,
exerting influence is much different from playing a role within the
decision-making process. Nevertheless, influence has to be built on voice
opportunities provided (although sometimes weakly) by the procedure of
policy formulation at the European level, whereas very few actors are
involved in both policy formulation and implementation within global
decision-making. Furthermore, at the EU level there are important policies
that are developed through the negotiations of both horizontal (social actors
governments) and vertical (supranational national subnational
governments) actors and which involve implementation guarantees of local
bureaucracies (an important example which will be discussed in more detail
is cohesion policy). On the contrary, within the WTO/General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the IMF and the World Bank i.e. the global
institution decision-making is strongly influenced by few countries
representing specific interests promoting free trade around the globe
(Curzon and Curzon, 1973: 3301; Reinalda and Verbeek, 1998).
But how can we test the hypotheses derived from the previous paragraphs?

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

Graziano: Europeanization or Globalization?

Are there in the EU market correcting policies? Is multilevel governance

present? Is the decision-making mode of governance more open in the
Europeanization process than in the globalization one? Let us test our
hypotheses with respect to cohesion policy in Italy during the 1990s.
Cohesion policy is not a purely European policy: member states had in the
past different social development policies that have been challenged by the
emerging relevance of European cohesion policy. Such a policy has been
chosen because it shows very well where the (part of) bulk of the
differences between Europeanization and political globalization lays. The
idea is that if we do not find any difference (or only a minor one) in
redistributive policies, then the Europeanization vs. globalization argument
would a fortiori not be sustainable with respect to other policies. Moreover,
Italy is a particularly interesting case study since it has performed badly
in the implementation of EU cohesion policy: the assumption is that if
there are pressures from (and institutional answers to) Europeanization
in Italy, then it is even more possible that there will be in other member
states more compliant to or in line with EU policy or institutional
constraints.

Empirical Insights from the 1990s: Europeanization and

Globalization in Italy10
T H E I TA L I A N P O L I T I C A L S Y S T E M I N T H E 1 9 9 0 S : T H E R O L E O F
EXTERNAL PRESSURES FOR CHANGE

Broadly speaking, Italy witnessed a great transformation during the 1990s

and several scholars have pointed out that Europe has played an important
role, although not decisive, in this transformation (Di Palma et al., 2000;
Ferrera and Gualmini, 1999). The general features of the transformation of
governance can be summarized as follows: at the national level, after a
political earthquake (Cotta, 1996) caused by the discovery of mass political
corruption, Italy has moved from a centralized party government pattern to
a broader multilevel governance system in which new actors at the national
level and also at the subnational level have emerged. Within this more
general framework, how did the two processes manifest themselves? What
has been the specific political impact of globalization and Europeanization?
Such questions are impossible to answer in statistical terms by attributing
precise weights to different explanatory factors. Nevertheless, it is possible
to capture relevant impulses and to assess their direct or indirect impact on
specific policy domains. I shall focus on cohesion policy, which is the most
important policy aimed at socio-economic inclusion. I will illustrate the
Europeanization of socio-economic cohesion policies and its fostering of a
multilevel governance system aimed at a positive rather than simply negative
integration, characterized by an increasingly open decision-making process.

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

181

182

Global Social Policy 3(2)

Moreover, I will try to demonstrate the relevance and particularity of such a

process by contrasting it to the purely normative and cognitive constraints
derived from the globalization political discourse (Schmidt, 1999a), which
have been relevant within the arena of Italian cohesion policy.
T H E G L O B A L I Z AT I O N O F C O H E S I O N P O L I C Y

To capture the relevant dimensions of the ideological forces of globalization

one might, to begin with, simply look at the IMF Staff Country Reports.
The Year 2000 Report on Italy states quite clearly the socio-economic
priorities that should be encouraged and sustained by the national
government. Acknowledging that unemployment must be reduced,
especially in the South and among the young (IMF, 2000: 24), the IMF staff
also state that future steps should be targeted at lowering the tax burden on
labor income, with a particular view to easing job market entry (IMF, 2000:
24). The only way to enhance competitiveness seems, therefore, to be by
cutting labour taxes and not by implementing a new corporate income tax or
promoting new forms of sustainable development. As far as the Italian case is
concerned, however, globalization is often invoked as a new vincolo esterno
(even more than Europeanization) which limits the cognitive and normative
behaviour of national decision makers.
Instead, cohesion policies are instrinsically distant from the neoliberal
creed (Pieper and Taylor, 1998) fostered by international organizations such
as the IMF, which, as implicitly highlighted in the Annual Country Report,
is more interested in the creation of a free market. This does not mean that
certain aspects of negative integration policies are not relevant to Southern
European Members states, which benefit from the rationalization impulse
deriving from such policies (Ferrera et al., 2000b). Nevertheless, it
demonstrates how market correcting policies are not promoted by global
institutions.
In addition to not containing a market correcting dimension, global
institutions are not led by a consolidated and structured executive
comparable to the European Commission. The IMF and the World Bank in
particular are not responsible before an elected body such as the European
Commission is; instead, both institutions are intergovernmental bodies
elected by governments.
Finally, the decision-making process of such institutions is closed and
focused exclusively on labour cost and tax reduction reforms. Typical policies
promoted by institutions such as the IMF include cuts in public spending,
high interest rates, and credit restraints (especially for the public sector)
(Pieper and Taylor, 1998: 41). The IMF technical staff annually delivers a
country report which is based on the importance of market-friendly policies
and is written by a staff of autonomous experts who are only accountable to
the IMF Board.

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

Graziano: Europeanization or Globalization?

T H E E U R O P E A N I Z AT I O N O F C O H E S I O N P O L I C Y

To a certain extent, cohesion policy is the most important market correcting

policy implemented at the EU level. First, because it is targeted explicitly at
regions that are lagging behind and are in need of financial resources in
order to catch up with other more advanced regions in Europe, and, second,
because it redistributes resources to peripheral territories that are having
trouble with the liberalization and deregulation process (building an
increasingly more free market) taking place in Europe (Marks, 1993).
The objective of social and economic cohesion has already been addressed
in the Preamble to the EEC Treaty of Rome, even if the propositions that it
spelt out were not immediately met with the adoption of a comprehensive
cohesion policy framework.11 It was in the 1970s (and more markedly in the
1990s) that the territorial dimension and the weight of European institutions
gained relevance. In regulation 2088/85 mainly inspired by the Greek and
French governments the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (IMP)
were brought to life. These programmes represented a clear and decisive
attempt to correct and rationalize European cohesion policy.
The IMP introduced principles (concentration of resources, partnership
among institutional and societal actors, programming and additionality of
resources), consolidated by successive structural fund reforms, which
promoted the emergence of a multilevel pattern of governance. In 1988 this
policy was reinforced by the approval of the first reform of the financial
instruments of cohesion policy, which witnessed a substantial increase in
funds allocation. Essentially, within the course of the 1990s the resources
made available by the EU have increased significantly, accounting for 35.2
percent of the EUs budget, and absorbing just under 0.5 percent of the
average GDP of the member states.12
The increase of the funds available for cohesion policy and the implementation of the concentration, partnership, programming and additionality
principles contributed to the building of a multilevel system of governance
that differs significantly from the traditional pattern of top-down local
development policies that constituted the Intervento Straordinario per il
Mezzogiorno (Extraordinary Intervention for the Southern Italian Regions).13
In fact, since 1975 Italy has been confronted with a new and important
actor in the administration of socio-economic disparities: the EU
institutions. At a European level, Italy was particularly weak in making her
voice heard in international bargaining.14 In this new European arena
national interests were not well defended. Italy has benefited from EU
subsidies in large part due to the pressure of other member states (Greece
and France first, then Spain and Portugal respectively) interested in the
adoption of measures favouring areas considered to be underdeveloped.
Italian indifference influenced the two Structural Funds negotiation
rounds at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, which
demonstrated the scarce attention paid by Italian decision makers to vital

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

183

184

Global Social Policy 3(2)

European financial matters. In contrast, the new round for the period
200006 has shown a strong potential prompted by Treasury Ministry
(Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione economica) already
during the policy formulation phase.
First, from a top-down perspective, the Treasury Ministry has underlined
the centrality of the regions, insisting on one of the cardinal principles of the
structural funds programming and founding, alongside national
horizontal negotiations, a board for regional horizontal negotiations. With
the adoption of the new Community Support Framework (CSF) there is a
consistent move towards a regionalization of the management of Structural
Funds. During the period 200006 more than 70 percent of the total
resources available will be managed by the region compared to less than 50
percent in the previous CSF.
Second, there has also been a bottom-up dynamic. The intense
concertation at both national and regional levels contributed to increasing
the number of social actors involved in the decision-making process,
facilitating the formation and promotion of a regional interest during the
programming of EU cohesion policy. Therefore, the Italian government was
operating in an increasingly open and institutionalized decision-making
environment.
T H E P O L I T I C A L E F F E C T S O F G L O B A L I Z AT I O N A N D
E U R O P E A N I Z AT I O N

I have sought to demonstrate the progressive assertion of a Europeanization

of cohesion policies: the traditional Italian policy of assistance for the
Mezzogiorno is aligned with an EU policy that has challenged and changed
the national policy. But what are the political effects of the Europeanization
of cohesion policy in Italy? And what has been the role of globalization?
The earthquake that rocked the Italian political arena in the early 1990s
also affected the policy area under examination. The persistence of wide
territorial differences has favoured the consolidation and spread of a
negative evaluation of the entire 40-year span of the Intervento Straordinario.
In 1991 a referendum to abrogate it was proposed and, successively, L. 448
was adopted in December 1992. In this context of institutional uncertainty,
Europe has become an increasingly important political and legislative point
of reference for national and regional governments. Europeanization has
had substantial repercussions on relations between the centre and periphery,
between the executive and legislative, on national and regional
bureaucracies, and on patterns of interest representation.
First, with regard to executive and legislative relations, the role of national
government was increased on all fronts. At this time the Treasury Ministry
plays the coordinating role and is the driving force behind cohesion policy,
while Parliament, traditionally a key figure for national cohesion policies,
has a rather weak controlling function. At a regional level it is still the

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

Graziano: Europeanization or Globalization?

Government that exercises key functions. For example, responsibility for EU

policies in Apulia is under the President of Regional Government (Giunta),
while the regional Assembly carries out only a marginal role.
Furthermore, a reorientation of centreperiphery has taken place, the
most substantial effect being the increased resources available to regional
government institutions. With the new programming for the period
20002006 in particular in which centreperiphery negotiation was quite
intense the regions will have the exclusive management of 70 percent of
the total resources allocated to Italy at their disposal, whereas, for the other
two CSF periods, they had managed less than 50 percent of the available
budget. Moreover, the tools of the negotiated programming anticipate an
increase in territorial centralization and in the power of regional (and to a
certain extent sub-regional) governments. Such expansions, which
contextually involve the transfer of authority to the transfer of resources,
are even more relevant seen in the light of other forms of jurisdictional (but
not resource) decentralization anticipated by some recent legislative
provisions.
The effects of Europeanization have also been significant on bureaucracy.
It is necessary to pause, above all, on the bureaucratic machinery in order to
understand the amount of change triggered by the implementation of EU
cohesion policy. Over the past years, to meet the challenge of the new
procedures introduced by the Community bureaucracy,15 a process of
rationalization has been put in motion that continues to affect a deep change
on the nature of administration in national and regional bureaucracies. Such
a process implies a progressive independence of the bureaucratic machine
from political parties and an adherence to the regulatory principles that limit
the discretionary powers and steer administrative behaviour towards a
problem-solving approach. Such rationalization occurred (and still occurs) at
the centre while it is often determined by an incentive derived from the
centre when it occurs at the periphery.
Finally, interest representation has been strongly influenced by
Europeanization. At a national level the influence of the parties has been one
of the reasons for the progressive clientelististic degeneration of the
Intervento Straordinario. On the other hand, EU decision-making has always
been less open to party influence concerning national policy-making. At a
regional level the tools of the negotiated programming and EU programmes
have widened the circle of the interests taken into account during the
preparatory phases, including players who were not previously on the scene
at a regional level (e.g. minor business associations and representatives of
Third Sector associations). In this new context, regional government
institutions take on a central role as coordinators and as a driving force
mainly controlled by social actors and, in a much diluted role with respect to
the past, political parties.
In contrast, the political effects of globalization for cohesion policy in the

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

185

186

Global Social Policy 3(2)

Italian case have not been very relevant. In general, the political effects of
globalization on socio-economic policies and institutions have been less
relevant than those provoked by European integration (Ferrera and
Gualmini, 1999: 6074). From an institutionalist perspective, in the area of
cohesion policy globalization seems to have manifested itself as a political
discourse (Schmidt, 1999b) constraint, affecting both domestic and European
policy-making by limiting the possible policy options, but has not acted
much as a motor for domestic institutional and policy change. It has, of course,
modified the investment preferences of some investors, whose interest are
no longer anchored to the national economic interest, but such changes have
been filtered or made possible primarily by European institutions and
policies.16 In particular, the development of cohesion policy in Italy shows
that globalization has not been able to avoid the continuation of market
correcting policies in EU member states, and that the strengthening, with
respect to cohesion policy, of both the executive and bureacracy in Italy can
not be considered as an effect of globalization. In other words, whereas
Europeanization has had a strong direct impact on the development of
cohesion policy, globalization has played a weaker indirect role that was
somewhat contrasted by Europeanization itself.

Globalization or Europeanization? Some Lessons from the

Italian Case
Over the past years, after the failure of the Structural Adjustment paradigm
of the 1980s (Pieper and Taylor, 1998), global institutions have also begun to
change towards a more bottom-up approach to development (see World
Bank, 2002). At the same time, Europeanization, until the end of the 1990s,
has also meant a build-up to the EMU and, therefore, the setting and
implementing of harsh budget deficit reducing policies, sharing common
features with the call for sound budget policies promoted by global
institutions. Therefore, are Europeanization and political globalization
processes becoming increasingly alike?
It would be rash to draw conclusions in the case of Italy on the basis of a
single area of policy study, however significant it may be, since the majority
of cohesion policy actors are involved in horizontal and vertical negotiations,
and the policy concerns the development of the territory as a whole and not
just of specific sectors, thus representing an emblematic case of policy aimed
at market correction. That notwithstanding, the above analysis provides a
more general reflection of the transformation of Italian governance
particularly in the social and economic policy sectors.17
In the first place, along with a consolidated influence of EU law, the
Europeanization of national policies has recently, over and beyond cohesion
policy, reached other policy domains (for example monetary and labour

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

Graziano: Europeanization or Globalization?

policies). After 1992 this process accelerated, following the consolidation of

policy learning processes derived from the innovation of EU policies. Such
an acceleration confirms that the intensity of Europeanization varies on the
basis of the previous paths followed by its member countries: the greater
the discrepancy between EU and consolidated national policies (the socalled goodness of fit: see Risse et al., 2001), the greater the necessary
timespan in order to adapt the national policy setting to EU requirements.
Furthermore, Europeanization seems to lead to a restructuring of
centreperiphery relations in a manner that is more favourable to the
periphery than before. Naturally, this does not imply that such central
government institutions are obsolete and excessively weakened by the
strengthening of regional governments. Rather, it seems that there is an
induced redefinition of the role of national government led by the
government itself, which takes place in a context where processes are
occuring on which the national government exercises an almost irrelevant
(globalization) or reduced influence (Europeanization). Such processes
reduce the traditional sovereignity of western governments entailing a
greater distribution of power among the various government institutions
and a widening of the number of actors that have access to the decisionmaking process, thus giving birth to what has been defined as multilevel
governance. Nevertheless, since national government has the most difficulty
in controlling the economy for exogenous reasons, the sharing of its
weakness is a demonstration of its strength: the government decides to
decentralize responsibility and authority knowing very well that in the new
world economy the state-driven methods of intervention would prove of
little use. Europeanization therefore is not in itself automatically effective; it
is the behaviour of national government that makes Europeanization display,
or not display, all its effects.
Finally, the concept of Europeanization shows a remarkable descriptive
validity enabling us to better understand the interaction between EU and
national governments. The recent reorientation of European studies
towards policy analysis can be seen as favourable for its characteristically
strong empirical component. Nevertheless, a large amount of information is
currently available on how community policies are enacted on a European
level, but less is known about the specific patterns of the preference
formation of national and regional governments and the implementation of
EU policies in member states. To gain a better understanding of EU policymaking in its entirety it is necessary to examine the member states more
closely and to empirically analyse, on the one hand, the results of Europeanization and, on the other hand, the links between national governance and
supranational governance in order to also capture the patterns of policy
learning and policy feedback processes. This is certainly not an easy task but
it is a necessary one in order to acknowledge not only the impact of Europe
on its member states but also the evolution of EU integration.

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

187

188

Global Social Policy 3(2)

The political effects that have been discussed might also somehow be
influenced by globalization pressures, but the argument developed in this
article demonstrates that all possible pressures are filtered and accompanied
by other policies at the European level, which are trying to incorporate the
constraints and opportunities of an increasingly open world within the socalled European social model. In the next few years we will see if there are
chances (quite weak for the moment) for a Europeanization of globalization
thanks to the creation of a more or less homogeneous European social
model which might become a model for other countries, or set of countries,
or if Europeanization will refer only to a defensive strategy undertaken by
European countries trying to protect and consolidate national or a European
social model(s) in an increasingly integrated world.
a c k n ow l e d g e m e n t s
I would like to thank all the participants to the COST A15 WG1 meeting in
Florence (1112 October 2002), where a longer version of this article was presented,
for useful suggestions. I owe special debts to Eero Carroll, Maurizio Ferrera, Nick
Manning and Bruno Palier for their very useful comments and suggestions.
notes
1. For a partial exception, see Hay et al. (1999); Scharpf and Schmidt (2000).
2. In fact, these authors do not provide a definition based on clear criteria; they
conceptualize rather broadly the phenomenon of globalization.
3. Among few other exceptions we find Held et al., 1999; Keohane and Milner, 1996.
4. This article considers the institutional implications of both political globalization
and Europeanization, leaving aside the economic consequences that are assessed
with a large degree of uncertainty by economists (for the Italian case, Barba
Navaretti, 1999; Faini et al., 1999; Milone, 1999). For a similar institutionalist
perspective on globalization and its impact on European welfare states see Hay et
al., 1999.
5. Anderssen and Eliassen, 1993; Bulmer, 1983; Ladrech, 1994; Mny et al., 1996;
Olsen, 1995; Radaelli, 1997; Risse et al., 2001; Schmidt, 1999a, 1999b; Wallace,
1996.
6. Conzelmann, 1998; Hooghe, 1996; Jeffery, 1997; Keating and Hooghe, 1996;
Keating and Jones, 1995; Le Gals and Lequesne, 1997.
7. As Beyeler points put in her contribution to this issue, both economic (market)
integration and political integration are part of Europeanization. In other words,
Europeanization includes economic integration but it is more than economic
integration.
8. Radaelli rightly points out that Europeanization would not exist without European integration (Radaelli, 2000: 6), implying, therefore, that such integration is
a prerequisite (or part) of Europeanization.
9. Only more recently the World Bank has gone back to its initial goals: poverty
alleviation and (micro)credit measures (World Bank, 2002).
10. The research was carried out in a three-year period and regarded both the

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

Graziano: Europeanization or Globalization?

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

17.

national and the subnational dimension. About 60 interviews with top

bureaucrats and governmental representatives were performed.
For more detailed accounts see Armstrong (1995); Pollack (1995); Staeck (1996).
For the data see European Commission (1998: 34).
For further details see Graziano (2003).
See Ferrera (1991); Giuliani (1992).
See Franchini (1993) and Dente (1999: 1234).
In a research project on Social Integration in Europe, interviews have shown
that national and local elites perceive the constraints of globalization as not as
relevant as the opportunities and constraints posed by European institutions and
policies. No global actor enters into their day-to-day political life. For the
preliminary findings of this research, see Ferrera et al., 2000a.
For similar conclusions regarding the scarce influence of international
organizations (such as OECD) and the relevance of European institutions on the
reform of Italian welfare, see Bertozzi and Graziano in Armingeon and Beyeler
(2003).

references
AA.VV. (2002) The Future of Cohesion Policy: Conference Proceedings. Brussels:
European Commission.
Adams, F. and Gupta, S.D. (1997) The Political Economy of Globalization: An
Introduction, in S.D. Gupta (ed.) The Political Economy of Globalization (pp. 112).
Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Anderssen, S.S. and Eliassen, K.A. (eds) (1993) Making Policy in Europe: The
Europeification of National Policy-making. London: Sage.
Anderson, J.J. (1995) Structural Funds and the Social Dimension of EU Policy:
Springboard or Stumbling Block?, in S. Leibfried and P. Pierson (eds) European
Social Policy: Between Fragmentation and Integration (pp. 12358). Washington, DC:
Brookings.
Armingeon, K. and Beyeler, M. (eds) (2003) OECD and Welfare States Reforms in
Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Armstrong, H. (1995) The Role and Evolution of European Community Regional
Policy, in M. Keating and B. Jones (eds) The European Union and the Regions (pp.
2362). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Barba Navaretti, G. (1999) Is the Suspect Guilty? Labour Market Effects of Trade
Liberalisation in Textile, Working paper prepared for Centro Studi Confindustria
and for the Centre for European Policy Studies, Ancona University.
Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization: The Human Consequences. London: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1997) Was is Globalisierung? [What is Globalization?]. Frankfurt Am Main:
Suhrkamp Verlag.
Bertozzi, F. and Graziano, P. (2003) The Impact of OECD Guidelines on Italian
Welfare State Reforms, in K. Armingeon and M. Beyeler (eds) OECD and Welfare
States Reforms in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bomberg, E. (1998) Issue Network and the Environment: Explaining European
Union Environmental Policy, in D. Marsh (ed.) Comparing Policy Networks (pp.
16783). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bourantonis, D. and Weiner, J. (eds) (1995) The United Nations in the New World
Order. London: Macmillan.

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

189

190

Global Social Policy 3(2)

Bulmer, S. (1983) Domestic Politics and European Community Policy-making,
Journal of Common Market Studies 21(3): 4963.
Conzelmann, T. (1998) Europeanization of Regional Development Policies?
Linking the Multi-level Governance Approach with Theories of Policy Learning
and Policy Change, European Integration online Papers 2(4), http://eiop.or.at/
eiop/texte/1998-004a.htm
Cotta, M. (1996) La Crisi del Governo di Partito allItaliana, in M. Cotta and P.
Isernia (eds) Il Gigante dai Piedi dArgilla [The Giant with Clay Feet] (pp. 1152).
Bologna: Il Mulino.
Curzon, G. and Curzon, V. (1973) GATT: Traders Club, in Cox, R.W. and
Jacobson, H.K. (eds) The Anatomy of Influence: Decision Making in International
Organization (pp. 298333). Yale, CT: Yale University Press.
Dente, B. (1999) In un diverso stato [In a Different State]. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Di Palma, G., Fabbrini, S. and Freddi, G. (eds) (2000) Condannata al Successo?
[Condemned to Success]. Bologna: Il Mulino.
European Commission (1997) Communication on The Social and Labour Market
Dimension of the Information Society. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (1998) The Community Budget: The Facts in Figures,
Luxembourg. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (1999) The European Employment Strategy. Brussels: European
Commission.
European Commission (2000a) The EU Approach the Millennium Round. Brussels:
European Commission.
European Commission (2000b) Commissions Work Programme for 2000 and the
Strategic Objectives for 20002005, Press release. Brussels: European
Commission.
EU/Canada Summit (2000) Conclusions, Working document, Geneva.
Faini, R., Falzoni, A.M., Galeotti, R., Helg, R. and Turrini, A. (1999) Importing Jobs
or Exporting Firms? On the Wage and Employment Implications of ItalianTrade
and Foreign Direct Investment Flows, Giornale degli Economisti 58(1): 95135.
Ferrera, M. (ed.) (1991) Le dodici Europe. I Paesi della Comunit di fronte ai combiamenti
del 19891990 [Twelve Europes. The Members of the EC Community and the Political
Changes in 19891990]. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Ferrera, M. and Gualmini, E. (1999) Salvati dallEuropa? [Rescued from Without?].
Bologna: Il Mulino.
Ferrera, M., Gualmini, E., Graziano, P. and Alti, T. (2000a) Labour Market
Governance: the Experience of the Italian Region in the 1990s, Working Paper No.
27. Quaderni di Ricerca Poleis Universit Bocconi, Milano.
Ferera, M. Hemerijck, A.C. and Rhodes, M. (2000b) The Future of Social Europe:
Recasting Work and Welfare in the New Economy. Lisbon: Celta.
Franchini, C. (1993) Amministrazione italiana e amministrazione comunitaria: la
coamministrazione nei settori di enteresse comunitario [Italian and Community
Administrations: Coadministration in the Sectors Relevant for the EC]. Padova:
CEDAM.
Giuliani, M. (1992) Il Processo Decisionale Italiano e le Politiche Comunitarie
[Italian Decision-Making and EC Policies], POLIS 6(2): 30742.
Graziano, P. (2003) La Nuova Politica Regionale Italiana. Il Ruolo dellEuropeizzazione [The Europeanization of Public Policies in Italy: Cohesion and Labour
Policies in Comparison], in S. Fabbrini (ed.) LEuropeizzazione dellItalia. Bologna:
Il Mulino.

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

Graziano: Europeanization or Globalization?

Gupta, S.D. (ed.) (1997) The Political Economy of Globalization. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Hay, V., Watson, M. and Wincott, D. (1999) Globalization, European Integration
and the Persistence of European Social Models, Working Paper 3/99, University of
Sussex.
Held, D. (1996) Democracy and the Global Order. Stanford, CT: Stanford University
Press.
Held, D. (1999) Democrazia e ordine globale. Trieste: Asterios.
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1996) Globalization in Question. Cambridge: Polity.
Hooghe, L. (1996) Building a Europe with the Regions: The Changing Role of the
European Commission, in L. Hooghe (ed.) Cohesion Policy and European Integration
(pp. 89126). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ILO (2000) Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work: Your Voice at Work. Geneva: International Labour
Office.
IMF (2000) Italy: Staff Report for the 2000 Article IV Consultation. Washington, DC:
IMF.
Jeffery, J. (eds) (1997) The Regional Dimension of the European Union. London: Frank
Cass.
Keating, M. and Hooghe, L. (1996) By-passing the Nation-state? Regions and the
EU Policy Process, in J. Richardson (ed.) European Union. Power and Policy-making
(pp. 21629). London and New York: Routledge.
Keating, M. and Jones, B. (eds) (1995) The European Union and the Regions. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Keohane, R. and Milner, H. (eds) (1996) Internationalization and Domestic Politics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R. (eds) (1999) The Transformation of Governance in the
European Union. London: Routledge.
Krasner, S. (1999) Globalization and Sovereignty, in D.A. Smith, D.J. Solinger and
S.V. Topik (eds) States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (pp. 3452). London
and New York: Routledge.
Ladrech, R. (1994) Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case
of France, Journal of Common Market Studies 32(1): 6988.
Latouche, S. (1996) The Westernization of the World. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Le Gals, P. and Lequesne, C. (eds) (1997) Les Paradoxes des Rgions en Europe [The
Paradoxes of Regions in Europe]. Paris: La Dcouverte.
Marks, G. (1992) Structural Policy in the European Community, in A. Sbragia (ed.)
Europolitics (pp. 191224). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Marks, G. (1993) Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC, in A.
Cafruny and G. Rosenthal (eds) The State of the European Community, Vol. 2 (pp.
391410). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Marks, G., Scharpf, F., Schmitter, P. and Streeck, W. (eds) (1996) Governance in the
European Union. London: Sage.
Mny, Y., Muller, P. and Quermonne, J.L. (eds) (1996) Adjusting to Europe: The
Impact of the European Union on National Institutions and Policies. London:
Routledge.
Milone, L.M. (1999) Globalizzazione, Localizzazione delle Attivit Produttive e
Distribuzione del Reddito nei Paesi Avanzati: Uno Sguardo dInsieme
[Globalization, Production Localization and Income Distribution in Advanced

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

191

192

Global Social Policy 3(2)

Countries: an Overview], in F.R. Pizzuti (ed.) Globalizzazione, Istituzioni e Coesione
Sociale [Globalization, Institutions, Social Cohesion] (pp. 4756). Rome: Donzelli.
Milward, A.S. (1992) The European Rescue of the Nation-state. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Moravcsik, A. (1998) A Choice for Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Morlino, L. (1999) Europeanization and Representation in Two Europes, paper
presented to the Conference A la Rcherche de lEurope Mridionale, Pole
Universitaire Europen de Montpellier et du Languedoc-Roussillon, CNRS et
CEPEL, Montpellier, 279 May.
Olsen, J.P. (1995) European Challenges to the Nation-state. Oslo: ARENA.
Pieper, U. and Taylor, L. (1998) The Revival of the Liberal Creed: The IMF, the
World Bank, and Inequality in a Globalized Economy, in D. Baker, G. Epstein
and R. Pollin (eds) Globalization and Progressive Economic Policy (pp. 3763).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pollack, M. (1995) Regional Actors in an Intergovernmental Play: The Making
and Implementation of EC Structural Policy, in C. Rhodes and S. Mazey
(eds) The State of the European Union, Vol. 3 (pp. 36190). Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner.
Public Citizen (1998) Whose WTO? Washington, DC: Public Citizen Publications.
Putnam, R. (1988) Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level
Games, International Organization 42(1): 2545.
Radaelli, C. (1997) The Politics of Corporate Taxation in the European Union: Knowledge
and International Policy Agendas. London: Routledge.
Radaelli, C. (2000) Wither Europeanization? Concept Stretching and Substantive
Change, European Integration online Papers (EioP) 4, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/
texte/2000-008a.htm
Reinalda, B. and Verbeek, B. (eds) (1998) Autonomous Policy Making by International
Organizations. London and New York: Routledge.
Rhodes, M. (2000) Globalization, Welfare States and Employment: Is There a
European Third Way?, in N. Bermeo (ed.) Unemployment in the New Europe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Risse, T., Caporaso, J. and Cowles, G. (2001) Transforming Europe, in T. Risse, M.
Cowes and J. Caporaso (eds) Transforming Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Robertson, R. (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage.
Ross, G. (1998) European Integration and Globalization, in R. Axtmann (ed.)
Globalization and Europe. London: Pinter.
Scharpf, F. (1994) Community and Autonomy: Multi-level Policy-making in the
EU, Journal of European Public Policy 1(2): 21942.
Scharpf, F. and Schmidt, V. (eds) (2000) Welfare and Work in the Open Economy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, V.A. (1999a) Convergent Pressures, Divergent Responses: France, Great
Britain, and Germany between Globalization and Europeanization, in D.A.
Smith, D.J. Solinger and S.V. Topik (eds) States and Sovereignty in the Global
Economy (pp. 17292). London and New York: Routledge.
Schmidt, V.A. (1999b) The EU and its Member States: Institutional Constraints and
their Consequences, paper presented to the Meeting on Rethinking Federalism
in the EU and US: The Challenge of Legitimacy, Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University Press, 1920 April.

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

Graziano: Europeanization or Globalization?

Snyder, F. (1999) Globalization and Europeanization as Friends and Rivals:
European Union Law in Global Economic Networks, European University Institute
Working Paper 99/8, Florence.
Strange, S. (1996) The Retreat of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Temmel, I. (1998) Transformation of Governance: The European Commissions
Strategy for Creating a Europe of the Regions, Regional & Federal Studies 8(2):
5280.
UNDP (1999) 10th Report on Human Development. New York: UNDP.
Voronkov, L. (1995) International Peace and Security: New Challenges to the UN,
in D. Bourantonis and J. Wiener (eds) The United Nations in the New World Order
(pp. 118). London: Macmillan.
Wallace, W. (1996) Government without Statehood: The Unstable Equilibrium, in
H. Wallace and W. Wallace (eds) Policy-making in the European Union (pp. 43960).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wallace, W. (1999) The Sharing of Sovereignty: The European Paradox, Political
Studies 47: 50321.
Weiner, J. (1995) Leadership, the United Nations, and the New World Order, in D.
Bourantonis and J. Weiner (eds) The United Nations in the New World Order (pp.
4163). London: Macmillan.
World Bank (2002) Globalization, Growth, and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World
Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WTO (2000) Trading into the Future. Geneva: WTO.
rsum

LEuropanisation ou la Globalisation? Une Structure pour les

Recherches Empiriques (avec de lvidence de lExemple Italien)
Leuropanisation et la globalisation sont des termes qui sont, depuis quelques
annes, de plus en plus la mode. Nanmoins, lemploi de ces termes a souvent t
de manire approximative et on les a considrs comme quivalents en termes
dexercer les pressions externes sur les tats providence nationaux. Aprs avoir dfini
les deux processus, larticle illustre les diffrents lments de la globalisation et de
leuropanisation et donne et met lpreuve une structure analytique pour la
comprhension des effets institutionnels des processus. Dans la premire partie de
larticle, on dfinit les deux phnomnes politiques et on propose une structure
analytique base sur trois dimensions (lorientation du march, la mode de
gouvernement, et le style de prendre les dcisions). Dans la deuxime partie, on
fournit une tude plus en dtail de lexemple italien. Lanalyse empirique montre que
leuropanisation peut agir comme antidote la globalisation: cela ne promeut pas
seulement des diffrents buts de politique, mais cela montre galement les effets
institutionnels que la globalisation ne peut pas dterminer.

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015

193

194

Global Social Policy 3(2)

resumen

Europeizacin vs. Globalizacin? Un Marco de Investigacin

Emprica (con Algunas Muestras del Caso Italiano)
La globalizacin y la europeizacin se han convertido en trminos en boga en los
ltimos aos. Sin embargo, a menudo son utilizados sin rigor, considerndolos como
equivalentes en el ejercicio de presin externa sobre los estados de bienestar
nacionales. Tras definir ambos procesos, el artculo ilustra los diferentes rasgos de la
globalizacin y la europeizacin, brinda y pone a prueba un marco analtico para
comprender los efectos institucionales del proceso. En la primera parte del artculo,
se define los dos fenmenos polticos y se ofrece un marco analtico basado en tres
dimensiones (orientacin del mercado, modo de administracin y estilo de toma de
decisiones). En la segunda parte, se revisa con mayor detalle el caso italiano. El
anlisis emprico muestra que la europeizacin podra actuar como un antdoto para
la globalizacin, ya que no slo promueve polticas diferentes sino que tambin
muestra efectos institucionales que la globalizacin no puede determinar.
biographical note
PAOLO GRAZIANO ,

PhD in Political Science at the University of Florence, currently

teaches Political Science at Bocconi University of Milano. He has recently published
The Impact of OECD Guidelines on Italian Welfare State Reforms (with F.
Bertozzi) in the book edited by K. Armingeon and M. Beyeler, OECD and Welfare
State Reforms in Europe. He is also working on a volume for the Italian publisher Il
Mulino dedicated to The Europeanization of Italian Public Policies: the case of
Cohesion and Labour Policies. ADDRESS : Centro Poleis, Istituto di Economia
Politica, Universit Bocconi, V. Sarfatti, 25, 20136 Milano, Italy. [email:
[email protected]]

Downloaded from gsp.sagepub.com at National School of Political on April 8, 2015