GLOBALISATION AND EUROPEANIZATION

Globalisation and Europeanization and Domestic Policy Change

Globalisation and Europeanization and Domestic Policy Change

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 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. 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).

Definitions and Comparing Concepts

Globalization

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 (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'; Held et al, 1999: 150-1) 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 trans-nationalization of communications and its impact on national societies, individuals, 'the world system of societies' and mankind as a whole. 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. 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, ...