Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Accession conditionality is widely viewed as the European Union’s most effective instrument for promoting democracy abroad (Dimitrova and Pridham 2004; Schemmelfennig and Scholtz 2008). However, the codification of conditionality at the Copenhagen summit of the European Council in 1993 marked a reversal of the European Community’s policy during the Cold War. Whereas Cold War Ostpolitik provided present economic benefits in the hope of future political reforms, conditionality promises future economic and political benefits in return for present political reforms. Why did EU policy change so dramatically over just a few years?
In this article, I investigate the origins of accession conditionality as a particular policy instrument. I argue that one significant factor was the rise of new causal theories of democratization and the influence they had on EU policymakers. Most important amongst these changes was the inclusion of international factors as important sources of democratization and a shift in emphasis from structural- to agency-based theories of political change. Domestic and structural theories suggested that external actors had at best an indirect role to play in processes of democratization. However, the rise of new theories that emphasized the external sources of domestic political change and the importance of elite decisions in democratic transitions suggested a much greater role for entities like the EU. In short, my argument is that EU accession conditionality was the manifestation of these new causal theories of democratization in policy.
This argument contributes to our understanding of both why and how the EU promotes democracy in non-member states. It also highlights the role of epistemic shifts in policy change, and reveals the importance of explaining the history of the European Union by investigating the origins of policymakers’ beliefs.