Pub Date : 2005-12-01DOI: 10.1080/14613190500345649
Erol Kulahci
In one of her articles of reference, Heather Grabbe pointed out that most of the phenomena identified in the literature on Europeanisation may also be observed in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC). In addition, Grabbe presents the following elements of explanation when considering the influence of European Union (EU) conditionality on governance: (a) the speed of adjustment, (b) the opening up of CEEC elites to the influence of the EU, and (c) the extent of the EU agenda in terms of institutional and political changes. These factors are certainly relevant, but they do not reflect the importance of the partisan dimension for domestic adaptation in response to EU pressures. The analysis of the Turkish case will show precisely that the partisan dimension is an important explanatory variable for domestic change. In complement to the observation of Grabbe, our claim is that the roles of relevant partisan elites have to be highlighted. One aspect relates to the parties in government. Their presence plays a significant role in determining the attitude of the government towards EU conditionality. That said, one should stress the two factors responsible for bringing these partisan elites to power: the voters and the voting system. Accordingly, we will demonstrate that Turkey’s attitude towards EU conditionality varied during the last two electoral cycles, and was largely dependent on the partisan composition of the governments in power. This changing attitude of Turkey has an important impact on the evaluation of Turkish accession by the EU institutions. We will defend the hypotheses according to which internal political changes were not only determined by the EU, but also by the internal partisan factor. The combination of these two factors determined the scope and the limits of Turkish domestic reforms. Turkey is not only exposed to the pressure of the EU alone. As a distinctive set of institutions, the European Council also plays an important role. For example, the European Council instructed Turkey to release from detention Leyla Zana, a Turkish deputy of Kurdish origin. The United Nations is another institution which plays an important role and to which the European Commission refers to. For example, in the case of the return of internally displaced persons in the Kurdish region in Turkey and the relevant recommendation of the UN Secretary
{"title":"EU political conditionality and parties in government: human rights and the quest for Turkish transformation","authors":"Erol Kulahci","doi":"10.1080/14613190500345649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14613190500345649","url":null,"abstract":"In one of her articles of reference, Heather Grabbe pointed out that most of the phenomena identified in the literature on Europeanisation may also be observed in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC). In addition, Grabbe presents the following elements of explanation when considering the influence of European Union (EU) conditionality on governance: (a) the speed of adjustment, (b) the opening up of CEEC elites to the influence of the EU, and (c) the extent of the EU agenda in terms of institutional and political changes. These factors are certainly relevant, but they do not reflect the importance of the partisan dimension for domestic adaptation in response to EU pressures. The analysis of the Turkish case will show precisely that the partisan dimension is an important explanatory variable for domestic change. In complement to the observation of Grabbe, our claim is that the roles of relevant partisan elites have to be highlighted. One aspect relates to the parties in government. Their presence plays a significant role in determining the attitude of the government towards EU conditionality. That said, one should stress the two factors responsible for bringing these partisan elites to power: the voters and the voting system. Accordingly, we will demonstrate that Turkey’s attitude towards EU conditionality varied during the last two electoral cycles, and was largely dependent on the partisan composition of the governments in power. This changing attitude of Turkey has an important impact on the evaluation of Turkish accession by the EU institutions. We will defend the hypotheses according to which internal political changes were not only determined by the EU, but also by the internal partisan factor. The combination of these two factors determined the scope and the limits of Turkish domestic reforms. Turkey is not only exposed to the pressure of the EU alone. As a distinctive set of institutions, the European Council also plays an important role. For example, the European Council instructed Turkey to release from detention Leyla Zana, a Turkish deputy of Kurdish origin. The United Nations is another institution which plays an important role and to which the European Commission refers to. For example, in the case of the return of internally displaced persons in the Kurdish region in Turkey and the relevant recommendation of the UN Secretary","PeriodicalId":313717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113935732","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-12-01DOI: 10.1080/14613190500345516
Clementina Casula
The relevance of specific socio-organisational features has emerged in most contemporary debates on territorial development. Besides physical capital and human capital what seems to be crucial for the development of a territorial system and the enhancement of its endogenous resources in the world economy are the capacity of regulation and mobilisation or its institutions towards local and external productive forces and ‘the sense of identity which allows a population of people and enterprises settled in a territory to recognise themselves as a collective actor and to act so to face problems that grow in the local system’. Also the European Union (EU) recognises the importance of those ‘soft’ factors in development, especially since the 1988 reform of its regional policy. The new approach chimes with the EU’s increasing propensity in filling democratic deficit gaps through the use of deliberative practices: the organisational fields framed by the Commission—through specific actions, policy regulations, working documents—provide an incentive for stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes following common rules aiming for the collective definition of goals and objectives. In this manner Lowi’s provocative statement ‘policy makes politics’ could become the rule rather than the exception in the EU, where intergovernmental processes are increasingly preceded by the implementation of policies aiming to ‘Europeanise’ its territories—that is, to apply common rules, practices and values in highly divergent institutional systems and social contexts. The growing relevance of these processes explains the diffusion in recent years of ‘Europeanisation studies’, looking at how formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, shared beliefs and norms first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process are gradually incorporated in the logic
{"title":"Territorial identities and institutional building: strengths and weaknesses of EU policies for territorial cooperation in Southern regions","authors":"Clementina Casula","doi":"10.1080/14613190500345516","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14613190500345516","url":null,"abstract":"The relevance of specific socio-organisational features has emerged in most contemporary debates on territorial development. Besides physical capital and human capital what seems to be crucial for the development of a territorial system and the enhancement of its endogenous resources in the world economy are the capacity of regulation and mobilisation or its institutions towards local and external productive forces and ‘the sense of identity which allows a population of people and enterprises settled in a territory to recognise themselves as a collective actor and to act so to face problems that grow in the local system’. Also the European Union (EU) recognises the importance of those ‘soft’ factors in development, especially since the 1988 reform of its regional policy. The new approach chimes with the EU’s increasing propensity in filling democratic deficit gaps through the use of deliberative practices: the organisational fields framed by the Commission—through specific actions, policy regulations, working documents—provide an incentive for stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes following common rules aiming for the collective definition of goals and objectives. In this manner Lowi’s provocative statement ‘policy makes politics’ could become the rule rather than the exception in the EU, where intergovernmental processes are increasingly preceded by the implementation of policies aiming to ‘Europeanise’ its territories—that is, to apply common rules, practices and values in highly divergent institutional systems and social contexts. The growing relevance of these processes explains the diffusion in recent years of ‘Europeanisation studies’, looking at how formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, shared beliefs and norms first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process are gradually incorporated in the logic","PeriodicalId":313717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126514549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-12-01DOI: 10.1080/14613190500345474
Joerg Baudner, M. Bull
There has been a conspicuous impact of European Union (EU) policies in Italy, and the so-called ‘Europeanization’ of Italian public policies has consequently become a salient research topic. One such public policy area concerns the decentralization of the state and regional policies. There is a strong consensus that European policies played an important role in the wave of reforms carried through since 1992 which aimed at decentralizing the Italian state and reforming its regional policies. The impact of European policies on these reforms has been described as one of ‘convergent effects’ or as an outcome of ‘transnational discourse’. Yet, to date, there has been little detailed analysis of exactly how domestic and European factors have interacted in this public policy arena. In an earlier paper we showed how this interaction changed over time, thus modifying the mechanisms through which the impact of European policies was felt. We identified a difference between a ‘negative’ European impact in an earlier phase—where European Monetary Union (EMU) and the European limitations imposed on national state aid assisted in dismantling entrenched regional policies—and a ‘positive’ impact at a later stage, where European policies contributed to new policy developments. The analysis, however, also suggested that identifying exactly whether and how the latter impact occurred was complex. In this paper, therefore, we develop this part of the research further, analysing in more detail how European policies contributed to new Italian regional policy developments in the 1990s.
{"title":"European policies and domestic reform: a case study of structural fund management in Italy","authors":"Joerg Baudner, M. Bull","doi":"10.1080/14613190500345474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14613190500345474","url":null,"abstract":"There has been a conspicuous impact of European Union (EU) policies in Italy, and the so-called ‘Europeanization’ of Italian public policies has consequently become a salient research topic. One such public policy area concerns the \u0000decentralization of the state and regional policies. There is a strong consensus that European policies played an important role in the wave of reforms carried through since 1992 which aimed at decentralizing the Italian state and reforming its regional policies. The impact of European policies on these reforms has been described as one of ‘convergent effects’ or as an outcome of ‘transnational \u0000discourse’. Yet, to date, there has been little detailed analysis of exactly how domestic and European factors have interacted in this public policy arena. In an \u0000earlier paper we showed how this interaction changed over time, thus modifying the mechanisms through which the impact of European policies was felt. We identified a difference between a ‘negative’ European impact in an earlier \u0000phase—where European Monetary Union (EMU) and the European limitations imposed on national state aid assisted in dismantling entrenched regional policies—and a ‘positive’ impact at a later stage, where European policies contributed to new policy developments. The analysis, however, also suggested that identifying exactly whether and how the latter impact occurred was complex. In this paper, therefore, we develop this part of the research further, \u0000analysing in more detail how European policies contributed to new Italian regional policy developments in the 1990s.","PeriodicalId":313717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117038297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-12-01DOI: 10.1080/14613190500345490
S. Bolgherini
In recent decades, regions have dramatically emerged on the Community arena, and sub-national actors began to be considered legitimate partners in the European Union (EU) context. Europeanisation theories mainly focus on member states and their different reactions to EU pressures and developments. However, regional institutions also began to be involved in these processes and it is therefore possible to think of a ‘regional Europeanisation’. Theories on European integration often agree considering the process of Europeanisation as a set of pressures for adaptation, operating on political authorities and influencing their way of functioning and making decisions. The perspective adopted here considers this set of pressures coming from the EU as relevant not only for member states but also for sub-national authorities; the regional level will thus be the focus of our analysis. In particular, the cases of eight Southern European regions in four countries will be considered. The chosen case studies include Catalonia and Andalusia in Spain, Languedoc Roussillon and Rhône-Alps in France, Tuscany and Campania in Italy, Epirus and Attica in Greece. It is argued that Europeanisation and the related adaptation pressures have, in all eight regions, both an effect on the organisational structure of the regional
{"title":"Administrative adaptation in Southern regions: the emergence of a ‘Europeanised’ bureaucratic elite?","authors":"S. Bolgherini","doi":"10.1080/14613190500345490","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14613190500345490","url":null,"abstract":"In recent decades, regions have dramatically emerged on the Community arena, and sub-national actors began to be considered legitimate partners in the European Union (EU) context. Europeanisation theories mainly focus on member states and their different reactions to EU pressures and developments. However, regional institutions also began to be involved in these processes and it is therefore possible to think of a ‘regional Europeanisation’. Theories on European integration often agree considering the process of Europeanisation as a set of pressures for adaptation, operating on political authorities and influencing their way of functioning and making decisions. The perspective adopted here considers this set of pressures coming from the EU as relevant not only for member states but also for sub-national authorities; the regional level will thus be the focus of our analysis. In particular, the cases of eight Southern European regions in four countries will be considered. The chosen case studies include Catalonia and Andalusia in Spain, Languedoc Roussillon and Rhône-Alps in France, Tuscany and Campania in Italy, Epirus and Attica in Greece. It is argued that Europeanisation and the related adaptation pressures have, in all eight regions, both an effect on the organisational structure of the regional","PeriodicalId":313717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132643458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-12-01DOI: 10.1080/14613190500345557
A. Dobre
Previous studies on Europeanisation and domestic territorial and regional change have presented different interpretations that appear at first sight to be irreconcilable. The empirical evidence presented by the authors writing in the field points towards contradictory patterns and examples of national change. Whereas some authors argue that the EU’s impact at the domestic level led to convergence towards regionalisation, others stress the opposite, namely, that it has led to divergence, either regionalisation or centralisation depending on the existing national structures. In this study, I seek to contribute to this debate on Europeanization in two main ways. First, I try to unpack these contrasting hypotheses andmeasurements of domestic change and second, I apply and test them by studying how the EC/EU prospect of membership affects the territorial and regional governance of Spain and Romania. The two countries were selected for their similarity in so far as they have an authoritarian past, have historical regional and territorial structures, and were faced with the task of reforming their meso-level organisation and arrangements in the framework of their post-authoritarian transformation and preparation for EC/EU membership. In investigating these two cases, findings indicate that there is a complex array of different territorial units, institutional arrangements and policy choices across
{"title":"Europeanisation and domestic territorial change: the Spanish and Romanian cases of territorial adaptation in the context of EU enlargement","authors":"A. Dobre","doi":"10.1080/14613190500345557","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14613190500345557","url":null,"abstract":"Previous studies on Europeanisation and domestic territorial and regional change have presented different interpretations that appear at first sight to be irreconcilable. The empirical evidence presented by the authors writing in the field points towards contradictory patterns and examples of national change. Whereas some authors argue that the EU’s impact at the domestic level led to convergence towards regionalisation, others stress the opposite, namely, that it has led to divergence, either regionalisation or centralisation depending on the existing national structures. In this study, I seek to contribute to this debate on Europeanization in two main ways. First, I try to unpack these contrasting hypotheses andmeasurements of domestic change and second, I apply and test them by studying how the EC/EU prospect of membership affects the territorial and regional governance of Spain and Romania. The two countries were selected for their similarity in so far as they have an authoritarian past, have historical regional and territorial structures, and were faced with the task of reforming their meso-level organisation and arrangements in the framework of their post-authoritarian transformation and preparation for EC/EU membership. In investigating these two cases, findings indicate that there is a complex array of different territorial units, institutional arrangements and policy choices across","PeriodicalId":313717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133501486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-12-01DOI: 10.1080/14613190500345573
Angelos Sepos
The paper examines the impact of European integration on the central government and ministerial bureaucracy of Cyprus. The formation, procedure and performance of the Cyprus central government administration is analysed in reference to ‘Europeanisation’, defined as the ‘shift of attention of all national institutions and their increasing participation—in terms of the number of actors and the intensity—in the EU decision-making cycle’. Thus, ‘EU Europeanisation’ is about the resources in time, personnel and money directed by current and future Member States towards the EU level. Scholars have identified various mechanisms that induce Europeanisation in states. Drawing on institutionalism in organisational analysis, Claudio Radaelli presents the mechanisms of coercion, mimetism and normative pressures in EU policy diffusion. Christoph Knill and Dirk Lehmkuhl distinguish between institutional compliance or positive integration where the EU prescribes a particular framework, which is imposed on Member States, changing domestic opportunity structures or negative integration which allows for a redistribution of resources between national actors and policy framing or framing integration which influences to the point of modifying the beliefs and the common understandings of domestic policy-makers. Other authors remind us of the judicial review as a mechanism of change while
{"title":"The Europeanisation of the Cyprus central government administration: the impact of EU membership negotiations","authors":"Angelos Sepos","doi":"10.1080/14613190500345573","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14613190500345573","url":null,"abstract":"The paper examines the impact of European integration on the central government and ministerial bureaucracy of Cyprus. The formation, procedure and performance of the Cyprus central government administration is analysed in reference to ‘Europeanisation’, defined as the ‘shift of attention of all national institutions and their increasing participation—in terms of the number of actors and the intensity—in the EU decision-making cycle’. Thus, ‘EU Europeanisation’ is about the resources in time, personnel and money directed by current and future Member States towards the EU level. Scholars have identified various mechanisms that induce Europeanisation in states. Drawing on institutionalism in organisational analysis, Claudio Radaelli presents the mechanisms of coercion, mimetism and normative pressures in EU policy diffusion. Christoph Knill and Dirk Lehmkuhl distinguish between institutional compliance or positive integration where the EU prescribes a particular framework, which is imposed on Member States, changing domestic opportunity structures or negative integration which allows for a redistribution of resources between national actors and policy framing or framing integration which influences to the point of modifying the beliefs and the common understandings of domestic policy-makers. Other authors remind us of the judicial review as a mechanism of change while","PeriodicalId":313717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134601830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-12-01DOI: 10.1080/14613190500345672
M. Farrell
These two volumes form part of the growing literature on the Iberian countries in the European Union (EU), released to coincide with the enlargement of the EU and after a decade and a half of membership. While both volumes deal with similar themes, there are a number of differences in both style and substance. Closa and Heywood’s jointly authored book adopts a neo-institutionalist analytical framework to study the processes of change in Spanish domestic politics, polities and institutions. For the authors, ‘Europeanisation’ is consistent with the continued independence of the nation-state to make its own choices and decisions in regard to internal concerns and external relations. The edited volume by Royo and Manuel brings together a group of Iberian scholars of distinction to review the fifteenth anniversary of Spain and Portugal’s accession to the EU, adopting an analysis that is stronger on the economic impact of EU membership. A common point of departure in both of these volumes is the recognition of European Community accession as the leitmotif of a successful transition to democracy in each country. After decades of relative isolation under authoritarian regimes, the success of processes of democratic transition in both countries paved the way for full membership of the European Community in 1986. Both Spain and Portugal shared similar hopes for what European integration would bring—with the experience of dictatorship behind them, the two countries anticipated that membership would help to strengthen the newly created democratic institutions, and to secure a place in international society, while also producing much-needed economic benefits. European Community membership offered both political and economic modernisation.
{"title":"Spain and Portugal in the European Union: assessing the impact of regional integration","authors":"M. Farrell","doi":"10.1080/14613190500345672","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14613190500345672","url":null,"abstract":"These two volumes form part of the growing literature on the Iberian countries in the European Union (EU), released to coincide with the enlargement of the EU and after a decade and a half of membership. While both volumes deal with similar themes, there are a number of differences in both style and substance. Closa and Heywood’s jointly authored book adopts a neo-institutionalist analytical framework to study the processes of change in Spanish domestic politics, polities and institutions. For the authors, ‘Europeanisation’ is consistent with the continued independence of the nation-state to make its own choices and decisions in regard to internal concerns and external relations. The edited volume by Royo and Manuel brings together a group of Iberian scholars of distinction to review the fifteenth anniversary of Spain and Portugal’s accession to the EU, adopting an analysis that is stronger on the economic impact of EU membership. A common point of departure in both of these volumes is the recognition of European Community accession as the leitmotif of a successful transition to democracy in each country. After decades of relative isolation under authoritarian regimes, the success of processes of democratic transition in both countries paved the way for full membership of the European Community in 1986. Both Spain and Portugal shared similar hopes for what European integration would bring—with the experience of dictatorship behind them, the two countries anticipated that membership would help to strengthen the newly created democratic institutions, and to secure a place in international society, while also producing much-needed economic benefits. European Community membership offered both political and economic modernisation.","PeriodicalId":313717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131596048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-12-01DOI: 10.1080/14613190500345664
S. Pavlowitch
The Convention of 30 January 1923 on the compulsory exchange of minority populations between Greece and Turkey was one of the 18 instruments, including the new peace treaty with Turkey, which resulted from the Conference on Near Eastern Questions that met in Lausanne from December 1922 to July 1923. It provided the legal framework for a radical uprooting of populations that has since come to be known as ‘ethnic cleansing’. The Turkish and Greek delegations had both agreed on its necessity. Lord Curzon, the British foreign secretary, who had initially described the proposed solution as a ‘bad and vicious [one] for which the world will pay a heavy penalty for a hundred years to come’, ultimately provided justifications for what he called ‘unmixing peoples’, which the Allies believed would ease the task of ensuring the stability of the new international order. Curzon’s phrase has often been quoted, especially since it was taken up by Roger Brubaker in 1995 to describe a phenomenon that accompanies the ‘aftermath of empire’ and that is part of a long process of ‘unmixing, building and inventing nations’ in eastern Europe. Muslim Circassians had immigrated to the Ottoman Empire in the1860s after the Russian conquest of the Caucasus. Many of them had been planted across a sensitive belt of territory in the Balkans that extended from Dobrudja to Kosovo. As Christians moved into selfgoverning territories in the Balkans from provinces still under Ottoman rule, so Muslims left regions that fell to Christian rule. During the risings of 1875–1878, Circassians and other refugees from ‘infidel’ rule—frequently people who had themselves been victims—wreaked vengeance on Christian peasants. After the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, more Muslims went, from Bulgaria and East Rumelia, and from territories ceded to Serbia, Montenegro and Romania. They also left Thessaly after 1891, when it became Greek, and Crete after 1897, when the island became autonomous. Many left Bosnia-Herzegovina when Austria-Hungary took over, even though they had lost neither their possessions nor their social status. They went even when they spoke little or no Turkish. Many settled as near
{"title":"Across the Aegean: a scholarly dialogue on the great demographic transfer","authors":"S. Pavlowitch","doi":"10.1080/14613190500345664","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14613190500345664","url":null,"abstract":"The Convention of 30 January 1923 on the compulsory exchange of minority populations between Greece and Turkey was one of the 18 instruments, including the new peace treaty with Turkey, which resulted from the Conference on Near Eastern Questions that met in Lausanne from December 1922 to July 1923. It provided the legal framework for a radical uprooting of populations that has since come to be known as ‘ethnic cleansing’. The Turkish and Greek delegations had both agreed on its necessity. Lord Curzon, the British foreign secretary, who had initially described the proposed solution as a ‘bad and vicious [one] for which the world will pay a heavy penalty for a hundred years to come’, ultimately provided justifications for what he called ‘unmixing peoples’, which the Allies believed would ease the task of ensuring the stability of the new international order. Curzon’s phrase has often been quoted, especially since it was taken up by Roger Brubaker in 1995 to describe a phenomenon that accompanies the ‘aftermath of empire’ and that is part of a long process of ‘unmixing, building and inventing nations’ in eastern Europe. Muslim Circassians had immigrated to the Ottoman Empire in the1860s after the Russian conquest of the Caucasus. Many of them had been planted across a sensitive belt of territory in the Balkans that extended from Dobrudja to Kosovo. As Christians moved into selfgoverning territories in the Balkans from provinces still under Ottoman rule, so Muslims left regions that fell to Christian rule. During the risings of 1875–1878, Circassians and other refugees from ‘infidel’ rule—frequently people who had themselves been victims—wreaked vengeance on Christian peasants. After the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, more Muslims went, from Bulgaria and East Rumelia, and from territories ceded to Serbia, Montenegro and Romania. They also left Thessaly after 1891, when it became Greek, and Crete after 1897, when the island became autonomous. Many left Bosnia-Herzegovina when Austria-Hungary took over, even though they had lost neither their possessions nor their social status. They went even when they spoke little or no Turkish. Many settled as near","PeriodicalId":313717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126596899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-12-01DOI: 10.1080/14613190500391437
Iosif Botetzagias
The present special issue on the Europeanisation of Southern Europe is more than a collection of up-to-date research papers on the different aspects of Europeanization. Its underlying rationale is to assess the problems, experiences and responses of, on the one hand, existing member states and, on the other hand, of new and candidate member states to Europeanisation. Different contributors in this issue use different definition(s) of Europeanisation (processes), and I am not going to offer in these opening lines yet another one: suffice to say that we all ascribe to the description of Europeanisation as ‘domestic change caused by European integration’. Another common thread of this issue’s papers is that they all address at least one of the three different mechanisms of Europeanisation’s impact on domestic change, identified by Knill and Lehmkuhl (2002): namely, (a) ‘institutional compliance’—where European policy making prescribes specific institutional requirements which have to be implemented, (b) ‘changing the domestic opportunity structures’—where the EU changes the ‘domestic rules of the game’, and finally (c) ‘a change in the beliefs and preferences of domestic actors’—a ‘framing integration’, affecting perceptions. The papers in this issue are organised in a way which allows the reader to progressively move across countries, national levels, policy domains and EU member state ‘categories’ in a differentiated pace: though each contribution is self-contained, one can easily draw comparisons with its preceding and following ones. In the first paper, Massimiliano Andretta and Manuela Caiani discuss the Europeanisation of the Italian social movements, employing a dual approach: on the one hand, with a top-down approach, they assess whether and how social movements are adapting their strategies within a Europeanised context, and whether and how they are able to seize the new European opportunities for achieving their goals, reaching the conclusion that while social movements still seem better able to exploit the domestic political opportunities, nevertheless they are slowly adapting to the transforming political context, taking more and more into account the European level. On the other hand, using a bottom-up approach, they deal with whether and how social movements frame their claims and identities as ‘European’ and which kind of vision of the process of European integration they promote, concluding that while they are more
{"title":"Introduction: the Europeanisation of Southern Europe","authors":"Iosif Botetzagias","doi":"10.1080/14613190500391437","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14613190500391437","url":null,"abstract":"The present special issue on the Europeanisation of Southern Europe is more than a collection of up-to-date research papers on the different aspects of Europeanization. Its underlying rationale is to assess the problems, experiences and responses of, on the one hand, existing member states and, on the other hand, of new and candidate member states to Europeanisation. Different contributors in this issue use different definition(s) of Europeanisation (processes), and I am not going to offer in these opening lines yet another one: suffice to say that we all ascribe to the description of Europeanisation as ‘domestic change caused by European integration’. Another common thread of this issue’s papers is that they all address at least one of the three different mechanisms of Europeanisation’s impact on domestic change, identified by Knill and Lehmkuhl (2002): namely, (a) ‘institutional compliance’—where European policy making prescribes specific institutional requirements which have to be implemented, (b) ‘changing the domestic opportunity structures’—where the EU changes the ‘domestic rules of the game’, and finally (c) ‘a change in the beliefs and preferences of domestic actors’—a ‘framing integration’, affecting perceptions. The papers in this issue are organised in a way which allows the reader to progressively move across countries, national levels, policy domains and EU member state ‘categories’ in a differentiated pace: though each contribution is self-contained, one can easily draw comparisons with its preceding and following ones. In the first paper, Massimiliano Andretta and Manuela Caiani discuss the Europeanisation of the Italian social movements, employing a dual approach: on the one hand, with a top-down approach, they assess whether and how social movements are adapting their strategies within a Europeanised context, and whether and how they are able to seize the new European opportunities for achieving their goals, reaching the conclusion that while social movements still seem better able to exploit the domestic political opportunities, nevertheless they are slowly adapting to the transforming political context, taking more and more into account the European level. On the other hand, using a bottom-up approach, they deal with whether and how social movements frame their claims and identities as ‘European’ and which kind of vision of the process of European integration they promote, concluding that while they are more","PeriodicalId":313717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114784922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2005-08-01DOI: 10.1080/14613190500133342
Dorothy Louise Zinn
As sometimes happens in the field of scientific research, a sense of failure was the initial impetus for the pilot study on which this paper is based. In 2001, the Associazione Tolbà of Matera, a volunteer immigrant advocacy group, launched an initiative for Albanian language instruction and literacy for the children of Albanian immigrants present in this Southern Italian city. Held in the Association’s offices by an Albanian former schoolteacher, the lessons had very mediocre results, with limited participation and little motivation on the part of the students. Yet, in 2002, the regional government of Basilicata recognized the importance of mother-tongue language maintenance among non-citizens, and offered to support the Associazione Tolbà’s original proposal for Albanian language instruction. Given the previous experience, the project coordinators thought it necessary to ask whether or not the Albanian immigrants wanted to promote the maintenance of their language, a crucial premise which could not be overlooked. What can it mean—as in the quotation opening this paper—that an Albanian mother feels unsure that her daughter, born and raised in Italy, does not understand everything in Italian? What forms of language and culture maintenance do the children display, and to what extent may these be affected by concerns over integration in the host country? The Albanian government’s recent National
正如在科学研究领域有时会发生的那样，一种失败感是本文所依据的初步研究的最初动力。2001年，移民志愿者倡导组织马泰拉协会(Associazione tolb of Matera)发起了一项倡议，旨在为居住在这座意大利南部城市的阿尔巴尼亚移民子女提供阿尔巴尼亚语教学和读写能力。这些课程由一名阿尔巴尼亚籍前教师在协会办公室举办，结果非常平庸，学生参与有限，积极性也很低。然而，在2002年，巴西利卡塔地区政府认识到在非公民中保持母语的重要性，并提出支持托尔博斯协会最初提出的阿尔巴尼亚语教学建议。鉴于以往的经验，项目协调员认为有必要询问阿尔巴尼亚移民是否愿意促进维护他们的语言，这是一个不容忽视的关键前提。这意味着什么——正如本文开头的引文所言——一位阿尔巴尼亚母亲对她在意大利出生和长大的女儿不能理解意大利语的一切感到不确定?孩子们表现出什么形式的语言和文化维护，这些可能在多大程度上受到东道国对融入的关注的影响?阿尔巴尼亚政府最近的国家党
{"title":"The second generation of Albanians in Matera: the Italian experience and prospects for future ties to the homeland","authors":"Dorothy Louise Zinn","doi":"10.1080/14613190500133342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14613190500133342","url":null,"abstract":"As sometimes happens in the field of scientific research, a sense of failure was the initial impetus for the pilot study on which this paper is based. In 2001, the Associazione Tolbà of Matera, a volunteer immigrant advocacy group, launched an initiative for Albanian language instruction and literacy for the children of Albanian immigrants present in this Southern Italian city. Held in the Association’s offices by an Albanian former schoolteacher, the lessons had very mediocre results, with limited participation and little motivation on the part of the students. Yet, in 2002, the regional government of Basilicata recognized the importance of mother-tongue language maintenance among non-citizens, and offered to support the Associazione Tolbà’s original proposal for Albanian language instruction. Given the previous experience, the project coordinators thought it necessary to ask whether or not the Albanian immigrants wanted to promote the maintenance of their language, a crucial premise which could not be overlooked. What can it mean—as in the quotation opening this paper—that an Albanian mother feels unsure that her daughter, born and raised in Italy, does not understand everything in Italian? What forms of language and culture maintenance do the children display, and to what extent may these be affected by concerns over integration in the host country? The Albanian government’s recent National","PeriodicalId":313717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125305598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：