How the European Union’s rapid expansion threatens European unity
The European Union has come a long way in a short time. What began as a six member coal and steel community in 1951 has evolved into a diverse political and economic partnership of 27 countries, representing 495 million people and over 30 percent of the world’s economic output. The fifth and sixth enlargements of the European Union, which occurred in 2004 and 2007, introduced 12 newmembers, almost doubling the number of member states. However, with multiple governing bodies, conflicting interests, and 23 official languages, the sheer complexity of such a large organization makes its decision-making difficult. According to Carina Sprungk, visiting professor of government at Harvard, the recent enlargements made the Union “inefficient and nontransparent” by dramatically increasing the size of legislative and executive bodies designed for a much smaller, more homogenous group of representatives.
Yet the most recent enlargements are not problematic only in the quantity of new members. This was the largest expansion ever in terms of population and landmass, but the smallest in terms of GDP. Predominantly Central and Eastern European and less affluent than their Western counterparts, these newest member states are part of a rapid and diverse expansion of the European Union that poses problems for unified policymaking and challenges prospects for economic integration. The result is a Union that will need to turn its gaze inward, focusing on reforming its bonds instead of expanding its borders.
Economic Woes
The European Union was built upon economic cooperation, but fast-paced enlargement has introduced a new dimension of inequality to economic negotiations. The increased size of the European Union, Sprungk argued, “reinforces the difference between big and small states.” Large, western states hold more political clout in the organization because they tend to be more senior members and have more developed economies. Although new members have benefited by joining, gaining access to the internal model and getting rid of formal trade barriers, old member states have used their clout to slow further economic integration they fear will transfer their wealth to their new neighbors.
The global economic downturn has exacerbated this problem. Christopher Bickerton, lecturer on international relations at Oxford University, told the HPR that the current crisis “will make it increasingly difficult for member states to see eye to eye.” The international credit crunch has dried up capital inflows to Central and Eastern Europe and exports, accounting for 80 to 90 percent of the GDPs of some of these countries, have also taken a hit. “Unwillingness on the part of rich member states like Germany to bail out states in trouble,” Bickerton argued, “may spell the end to some aspects of the European Union, such as its fiscal and monetary arrangements.”
Deepening, Not Widening
With the unemployment rate set to rise to 8.75 percent before the end of 2009, and many immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe searching for work in more prosperous states, new fears of job competition have engendered resistance to economic integration. This reluctance led to a proposal for “differentiated integration,” which would allow some states to cooperate more closely while excluding others on a temporary basis. Yet this strategy may be counterproductive if the aim is to ease tensions among member states. “Insofar as it will give more discretion to states to proceed at their own pace, it may leave the door open to closer integration between powerful states, with smaller states presented with a ‘take it or leave it’ choice once a decision to integrate further has been made by the big players,” Bickerton warned. Sprungk echoed this view: “Policy decisions should concentrate on creating solidarity among citizens and establishing more unity between the E.U. 27 rather than differentiating between them.”
It seems policymakers in the European Union will need to step back from expansion and differentiation, and focus instead on consolidation. The need to create coherence among legislative bodies and simplify the decision-making process has already prompted proposals for reform, but these plans have faced difficulties of their own. The Treaty of Lisbon, aimed at streamlining legislative procedure and policy implementation, was voted down in a referendum in Ireland last year due in part to concerns about increased centralization, and to date has been ratified by only 23 of 27 states. As Sprungk put it, “The E.U. needs a break. ‘Deepening’ instead of ‘widening’ should be the new slogan.”
Photo Credit: Flikr