Introduction
The development of the European Union (EU) over recent years suggests that this new political entity cannot be constructed on the same basis as national states. Many scholars have underlined the legitimation gap of European institutions, due to the ‘democratic deficit’ which renders these structures relatively inaccessible to common citizensFootnote 1 (Majone, Reference Majone1998; Moravcsick, Reference Moravcsick2002). In particular, many observers note the relevance of the formation of a transnational public sphere,Footnote 2 pointing out that the national and regional levels remain the most important domains of political participation and identification. From this point of view, the recent difficulties in relation to the ratification of European treaties confirm the eurosceptical position, revealing the fragility of European construction based on traditional constituent mechanisms.
Such processes have also contributed to constitutional debates about the EU, which is represented as a ‘democracy without a demos’. As a result, alternative sources of integration and legitimation for supranational institutions have been sought, with some authors arguing that European law and the definition of constitutional rights constitute important elements of cohesion. The work of the EU in setting substantive standards, goals, and criteria (establishing, e.g. legal limits to pollution or curtailing the genetic manipulation of agricultural products) should consequently be respected by national administrationsFootnote 3 (Cassese, Reference Cassese2004). According to Martin Shapiro, ‘constitutional law and administrative law are the key forms of institutionalization of political space because they constitute the formal, authoritative relatively precise rules that govern the making of all the other formal, authoritative, relatively precise rules of that space’ (Shapiro, Reference Shapiro2004: 3–4).
Although the multiplication of regulatory structures and the fluidity of standard-setting procedures raise the issue of coherence within the European legal space, a new network of sectoral government actors is promoting standardization.Footnote 4 In addition, the move toward harmonization has been stimulated by European institutions themselves, especially through the activity of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Thus, while public debates focus on increasing citizens’ rights to participate in European decision-making (Giorgi et al., Reference Giorgi, Crowley and Ney2001; Risse, Reference Risse2003), a new administrative framework appears to be taking form without any significant public debate.
An important element of this ongoing process of ‘constitutionalization’ relates to the role of e-government policyFootnote 5 in defining technical standards. The application of new information (IT) and communication technology generates systems of integrated and inter-operable administration (Guijarro, Reference Guijarro2005; European Commission, 2006a; Peristeras et al., Reference Peristeras, Loutas and Goudos2008). If they are to provide citizens and firms with more convenient access to government information and services, and to improve the quality of these services, e-government programs must pursue uniformity: the management of administrative information flows requires a high level of communication and interaction between public agencies at different levels of government (local, regional, central, and supranational). Moreover, as public offices start to use the same protocols, formats and criteria, integration leads, at the same time, to a certain degree of centralization. If the development of modern bureaucracies is coincident with the development of the Rechtstaat and its administrative rules, the process of construction of European administration has been accompanied by the formation of a digital architecture, the ‘code’, to use Lawrence Lessig’s term.Footnote 6
Many initiatives have been launched by European institutions to ensure uniformity in terms of administrative action and structures (Radaelli, Reference Radaelli2000; Schneider, Reference Schneider2004; Baptista, Reference Baptista2005), and many recent policy documents produced by the European Commission consider the role of new technologies within this process.Footnote 7 Although a coherent and uniform EU policy on e-government does not yet exist, great emphasis has been placed on its technological and infrastructural requirements and on the need for inter-operability. For instance, the working paper on ‘Linking up Europe: The Importance of Interoperability for E-Government Services’ (European Commission, 2003a) and the ‘European Interoperability Framework for pan-European E-Government Services’ (European Commission, 2004a) point in this direction. But what are the main objectives of the political marriage between IT and bureaucratic change, and what forms is this likely to assume (Lowi, Reference Lowi1992)?
In this article, we will investigate the formation of a ‘European administrative space’ and the role in such a field played by e-government. In the second part of the article, we will consider the role of technological standardization in promoting economic development and competitiveness. Finally, security policy will be analyzed as an example of ‘homogenization through technology’. In this area of policy-making – traditionally attributed to national governments – the EU faces some of the most difficult challenges for its future.
What is the European Administrative Space?
The historical difficulties in defining and developing the ‘landscape’ of the EU have been tackled by means of the metaphor of the ‘common space’. This expression that seeks to describe the integration process in Europe, is frequently found in official documents and in empirical research. Used in a myriad of different declinations – European constitutional space (the realm of shared constitutional values between member states and the EU), European judicial space (cooperation between courtrooms in different jurisdictions within an ‘area of security, freedom, and justice’), European public space, the European space of research (Hofmann, Reference Hofmann2008: 662) – this metaphor generated a shift in public discourse precisely at the moment in which it seemed particularly difficult to define the boundaries and identity of the EU. Many scholars underline the legal aspects of the formation of this transnational space, which appear to encompass ‘a vast number of different regulatory bodies, a mass of rules, a great quantity of procedures and a complex array of links both to national bureaucracies and civil society’ (Cassese, Reference Cassese2008). The emergence of this complex legislative entity is due to a fragmented process of accumulation, where rules are generated by a plurality of regulatory actors with no overarching legal principles. The reference here is, above all, to the large number of international organizations that act as standard-setters in different policy arenas, defining precise directions for the activity of national governments. Indeed, legal regimes ‘do not exist entirely independently of each other, but rather are linked in myriad different ways’ (Ibid, p. 19). The result is increasing interdependence between national administrative systems.
This context helps to explain the expression ‘European administrative space’ and to identify it as a ‘normative program, an accomplished fact, or a hypothesis’ (Olsen, Reference Olsen2002: 921; D’Orta, Reference D’Orta2003). First formulated in 1992, it was only in 1999 that an explicit attempt was made to clarify this notion, against the background of the extension of EU membership to Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs). Siedentopf and Speer (Reference Siedentopf and Speer2003) recall the definition suggested by SIGMA, a EU-OECD joint initiative established in 1992 dealing with the CEECs’ government and administration reform:
The E[uropean] A[dministrative] S[pace] represents an evolving process of increasing convergence between national administrative legal orders and administrative practices of member States. This convergence is influenced by several driving forces, such as economic pressures from individuals and firms, regular and continuous contacts between public officials of member States, and finally and especially, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (Siedentopf and Speer, Reference Siedentopf and Speer2003: 13).
Despite the traditional flavor of this definition, it remains unclear whether the creation of a ‘European administrative space’ refers simultaneously to other dimensions. Within a few years, empirical research had already branched out,Footnote 8 and mapping the European administrative space has become a major task. In analyzing the various stages of development of this space, and the importance of the European experience, Herving Hofmann (Reference Hofmann2008) argues that the development of an integrated administration ‘goes beyond forms of cooperation for implementation of EU law by community institutions and Member States’ agencies [… and that the European administrative space] contains aspects which affect the very nature of the EU’s system of shared sovereignty as well as the conditions for its accountability and legitimacy’ (Hofmann, Reference Hofmann2008: 662). On the one hand, this deals a harsh blow to the principle of state sovereignty within administration systems, while also outlining a framework that differs markedly from those applied within distinct national systems.Footnote 9
The EU has adopted a multidimensional approach to the problem of the European administrative space. Although responsibility for administrative organization remains with member states, European institutions have been trying to set uniform standards for administrative action since the beginning of the 1990s. Examples can be found in several fields: quality of regulation and simplification of legislative procedures; training of administrators; public administration evaluation and performance measurement; use of benchmarking techniques and best practices.
Since the late 1990s, the construction of a ‘common information area’, based on ICTs, has been a key element of important community programs.Footnote 10 According to the ‘White Paper on European Governance’, ICTs play an important role in supporting the implementation of the rules, processes, and behaviors that define good governance in Europe.
In 2000, the so-called ‘Lisbon strategy’ ambitiously stated European aspirations ‘to become the most competitive and dynamic economy based on knowledge in the world’. This represents a decisive step toward bringing together the member states within a single information society (European Council, 2000). The Lisbon strategy aims to increase growth and secure employment in Europe, identifying e-government as one of its central components: ‘[…] Member States should ensure that their own regulatory systems are better attuned to the needs of an EU-wide market. It is crucial to ensure and, where necessary, improve the role of national administrations in providing the right market conditions (e.g. greater use of on-line services, tackling corruption and fraud)’ (European Commission, 2005: 17). As noted in a report produced by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies for the European Commission: ‘coherence and interconnection criteria are as much organizational as they are technological. Currently, emphasis is given to the need for a single access point for citizens to all e-government services. This implies a high degree of coherence between the different parts of public organizations and as well as an interconnection and fluid interoperability between them’ (Burgelman and Clements, Reference Burgelman and Clements2003).
In 2005, an initiative was launched by the Commission (the so-called i2010) to ensure the uniformity of new technologies policies across Europe, demonstrating the value of standardization as a political valueFootnote 11 (European Commission, 2007a: 4). The aim of linking IT systems across national systems regards several policy areas, from environmental policy (European Commission, 2008a) to e-health (European Commission, 2004b). Meanwhile, the Commission has left member states with ample room for maneuver by decentralizing the context of policy implementation, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and regionalization. National and subnational administrations may avoid responding to European pressures, as ‘whether or not a country adjusts its institutional structure to Europe will depend on the presence and absence of mediating factors’ (Caporaso and Cowles, Reference Caporaso and Cowles2001: 2; Featherstone and Radaelli, Reference Featherstone and Radaelli2003). Thus, there is a combination of top–down aspects, concerning the downloading of EU directives, regulations, and institutional structures to member states, and bottom-up national initiatives and domestic responses to the diffusion of ICTsFootnote 12 (Goetz, Reference Goetz2001; Menz, Reference Menz2008).
Other reports underline the varying impact of new technologies in creating systems of integrated and inter-operable administration in the European context. For instance, a document produced by the European Commission states that ‘to be affordable and effective, implementation of the infrastructure required for the delivery of pan-European e-government services will have to be guided by an overall conceptual architecture, based on standards’ (European Commission, 2006b: 9). Defined as ‘the key enabler for the delivery of e-government services across national and organizational boundaries’, inter-operability systems are regarded as the most appropriate tools to ensure the mobility of businesses and individuals,Footnote 13 closer interaction among stake-holders, and more effective cooperation between administrations.Footnote 14 This program can only be realized by intervening in relation to the organizational, technical, and semantic domains:
• Organizational inter-operability is about being able to identify those players and organizational processes involved in the delivery of a specific e-government service and achieving agreement among them on how to structure their interactions, that is, defining their ‘business interfaces’.
• Technical interoperability is about knitting together IT systems and software, defining and using open interfaces, standards and protocols in order to build reliable, effective, and efficient information systems.
• Semantic interoperability is about ensuring that the meaning of the information exchanged is not lost in the process, that is, it is retained and understood by the people, applications, and institutions involved’ (European Commission, 2006b: 6).
It is not difficult to argue that e-government represents a pillar of European construction, due to its important role in relation to policies for administrative efficiency and social cohesion: a point deeply underestimated in academic debates on the future of the EU.
E-government between state and market
The drive toward a more homogeneous European space is strongly linked with the goal of strengthening the single market and exploiting the economic opportunities offered by the new technologies (i2010 High Level Group, 2006: 5). In a workshop on the theme of the ‘single information space’ in Europe, commentators complained about the absence of ‘widely accepted standards’ (Coene and Gasser, Reference Coene and Gasser2007: 6), as EU member states have often failed to establish a common framework that would allow technology companies to operate as they do in the United States or Japan: ‘this perpetuates a fragmented European market and therefore generates numerous obstacles to European competitiveness, as companies simply cannot implement strategies or solutions on a European or global scale. Such fragmentation reveals the Member States’ tendency to continue to think and act based on national instead of European considerations’ (ICT task force, 2006: II). However, the EU as a supranational entity has considered harmonization and coherence of regulatory architectures as the basis of its own existence – and success. For instance, the recent i2010 E-government Action Plan (European Commission, 2006c) clearly states that those countries which have developed e-government to a higher degree are also those with the strongest economic indicators: ‘this strong link between national competitiveness, innovation strength, and the quality of public administrations means that in the global economy a better government is a competitive must’ (Ibid: 3). There is, in fact, considerable evidence supporting the positive impact of new technologies in both the short and long term (van Ark and Inklaar, Reference van Ark and Inklaar2005).
An important element of the ‘European e-government platform’ is its emphasis on the development of an administrative framework that is favorable to business, especially through the reduction of administrative costs (i.e. the costs that companies must shoulder in order to comply with legislation and regulations; International Working Group on Administrative Burdens, 2004). For this reason, administrative reforms are included as a key element of Europe’s competitiveness agenda,Footnote 15 as they can encourage user-centered services and eliminate ‘red tape’ (i.e. unnecessary administrative burdens), and facilitate the sharing of information across departments and levels of government. Although the precise link between the digitalization of public services and economic competitiveness remains complex and elusive, the introduction of new technologies has been recognized as also bringing other benefits (Nixon and Koutrakou, Reference Nixon and Koutrakou2007). For example, a report produced by the Idabc e-government observatory (Idabc, 2005a) identifies seven types of interconnected benefits: improved quality of information and information supply, reduction of process time; reduction of administrative burdens, cost reduction, improved service level, increased efficiency, and increased customer satisfaction (Ibid, 2005a: 13). However, such tangible points seem to find unity in the broader objective of increasing economic competitiveness: ‘e-government can provide a major contribution to increasing economic competitiveness at local, regional, national, and community level. By streamlining bureaucratic procedures and increasing public sector efficiency, it plays a significant role in raising productivity levels in the economy as a whole’ (Ibid, p. 13).
The restructuring of services appears to have greater potential to satisfy the needs of firms than those of citizens, as is apparent from the diffusion and complexity of electronic services devoted exclusively to the business community (Centeno et al., Reference Centeno, van Bavel and Burgelman2005). Indeed, the most recent benchmarking report dealing with online services in Europe (Capgemini, 2009: 24) reveals that business-oriented services have developed much more rapidly than those aimed at citizens: ‘business services remain more mature than their citizen counterparts. This confirms the global trend that governments continue prioritizing the development of business services, with higher (sometimes mandatory) uptake and more tangible impact on a country’s economic performance. Sophistication for businesses now stands at 90% compared to 84% in 2007. Average sophistication of citizen services scores 12 points lower, standing at 78% in 2009, compared to 70% in 2007’. Thus, service availability for financial entities entails a de facto prioritizing of the business sector.Footnote 16
EU policies are likely to continue to be technologically and commercially driven,Footnote 17 despite renewed demand for services and for citizen-customer needs.Footnote 18 An important chapter of the European strategy indicates the interconnections between e-government initiatives and the social dimension of development.Footnote 19 Although ‘differences in economic performances between industrialized countries are largely explained by the level of ICT investment’ (European Commission, 2005: 3), this result can only be achieved through policy convergence and a willingness to adapt regulatory frameworks in order to facilitate the mobility of citizens and businesses. Cross-border company registration and the inter-operability of European e-procurement are examples of how e-government can respond to single market necessities. Some initiatives relate to the creation of web portals designed as single entry points for businesses, which enable interactions between financial actors and institutions, regardless of their position at local, national, or supranational level. The final objective is the creation of ‘online one-stop government’, which requires that all public authorities be interconnected and that the customer (citizen, private enterprise, or other public administration) can access public services via a single point, even if these services are provided by different public authorities or private service providers. The technical infrastructure is then conceived as the basis for enabling the administration to present itself to the citizen as a unified actor: information and services are offered through a single computer-based outlet, thus preventing the need to contact several public agencies: ‘the key issue of presenting and structuring information and services in a one-stop government is that the customer does not need specific knowledge of the functional fragmentation of the public sector’Footnote 20 (Wimmer, Reference Wimmer2001: 2; Reference Wimmer2002; Realini, Reference Realini2004). This possibility highlights the need to encourage interaction between administrative agencies and overcome cultural differences that could prevent access to the same service in different countries. The main challenge is to identify common procedures for using and accessing the available data, as well as sharing the logical structures that underlie the management of this data. The goal is a computer network that becomes an infrastructure for the introduction of shared organizational and cognitive models. In other words, the so-called technology revolution, within the European landscape, generates powerful pressures for analogous transformations in administrative practices, and at a deeper level, in values, assumptions, and experiences (Moxon-Brown, Reference Moxon-Brown2004).
The search for policy convergence: the European security space
Public security remains one of the most relevant and controversial policy areas in the EU, as it involves the complex and delicate balance between individual liberties and state control/authority. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that this issue represents a true dilemma for the EU. As with e-government initiatives in general, security policy is considered a precondition for political and economic development (European Commission, 2003b), and is associated with the fight against terrorism, organized crime, and interregional conflicts. However, the management of personal data also involves a number of potential threats to privacy and civil liberties.
It is undeniable that new technologies have provided European institutions with a huge amount of data on citizens. Suffice to say that in 2006 a European directive provided for the retention of all communications data across the EU, with the result that service providers are obliged to conserve and provide designated agencies with access to records of all phone-calls, mobile phone calls (and their location), faxes, e-mails, and internet usage.Footnote 21 This ‘digital tsunami’, a virtual avalanche of information, can only be governed by defining precise standards of organizational behavior. For this reason, within the framework of the European administrative space, security policy arguably requires additional coordination between Member States.
A Green Paper produced by the European Commission in 2006 criticized the delays in developing inter-operable systems to help in the fight against crime and terrorism in EU member states. Common technical standards and greater uniformity in legal regulations are considered the only way to integrate data from different detection technologies into a single system (European Commission, 2006a).
Other official documents emphasize that, in the field of surveillance, the convergence principle ‘would apply to all areas where closer relations between member states are possible: agents, institutions, practices, equipment, and legal frameworks’ (Statewatch Observatory, 2008). Security policy will require considerable investment in standardization, research, certification, and the inter-operability of detection systems in order to provide useful and applicable research tools. The report ‘Research for a Secure Europe’ (European Commission, 2007b) sustains that if European institutions collaborate more closely to promote security, member states, and other partners can achieve mutual benefits. In the same way, the recent ‘Concept’ paper from the Portuguese Council Presidency (2007) recommends that member states focus on building convergent platforms in order to ensure that all digital data streams can be integrated.
A good example is the creation of a system of identity cards based on detailed technical standards that are set at the supranational level. Such cross-border practices, introduced as a pilot project in 13 member states, permit the development of several new security systems, some of which make use of biometric data. On 28 November 2008, the European Commission adopted the ‘Action plan on electronic signatures (eSignatures) and e-identification to facilitate the provision of cross-border public services in the single market’. This initiative aims to assist member states in implementing mutually recognized and inter-operable eSignaturesand e-identification solutions.
In an analogous fashion, from 2009 onward, millions of people residing in the EU will be fingerprinted when they request a new passport, so that their identity can be checked (either one-to-one or one-to-many, against the whole database) for identification purposes (Statewatch Observatory, 2008: 11). The Commission concludes that ‘without the deployment of an inter-operable e-identification mechanism within the union, new barriers will be raised in practice, thus at odds with internal market instruments which themselves have been trying to enhance the functioning of the internal market’ (European Commission, 2008b: 11). According to this view, the aforementioned security measures represent an indispensable precondition for the delivery of new e-services and for the further development of the single market.
Only few years ago, the creation of a centralized database containing data on citizens of different nationalities would have constituted an impossible task. Today, however, European institutions possess an incredible mass of data, and the possibility of achieving integration with other geo-political regions is not excluded. Indeed, the EU is making arrangements with the United States to intensify data exchange in relation to citizens, including personal information on credit card transactions, travel histories, and Internet browsing habits (Savage, Reference Savage2008). New forms of transcontinental cooperation in data management have been developed within the ambit of global intelligence operations against terrorism (Roy, Reference Roy2005). These actions have tended to shift power and responsibility from the national to the supranational level, in a field traditionally assigned to national governments.
It is nevertheless clear that the diffusion of supranational e-government still has numerous barriers to overcome,Footnote 22 as ‘substantial legal, political, administrative, social, institutional, and cultural differences between member states and regions’ represent relevant impediments for a ‘growing number of important public services that seek to span national and regional boundaries’ (Leitner, Reference Leitner2003; European Commission 2007c: 4). Implementation depends on national preferences and strategies, with the result that many legislative acts supporting European e-government have not been applied or implemented at the domestic level.
E-signatures represent a good example, as more than 10 years after their adoption in Europe, research shows a highly uneven use of this technology.Footnote 23 A recent Idabc report recognizes the lack of mutual recognition of e-signatures among member states as one of the barriers in conducting business at the European level. Inter-operability is identified as the main complaint as ‘many applications rely only on CSPs accredited by their own national Accreditation Authority. […] Among all surveyed applications, 20 applications have been assessed as opened for cross-border use in the sense of the above definition but none of them accept a signature generated by a non-National certificate’ (Idabc, 2009: 95).
European imposition or national fragmentation?
Owing to its nature and aims, one may ask whether the fledgling e-government policy might be linked with the very process of ‘Europeanization’, as it serves as an instrument to ‘transfer from ‘Europe’ to other jurisdictions of policy, institutional arrangements, rules, beliefs, and norms, on the one hand; and building European capacity on the other’ (Bulmer, Reference Bulmer2007: 47). Indeed, it can be argued that this policy area was born ‘Europeanized’; that is, it developed from initiatives, objectives, and pressures associated with the EU. For example, the e-Europe program was crucial to enabling specific national action plans and clearing the way for EU funding (Idabc, 2005b). Thanks to the creation of an exchange and cooperation network for supranational administrations and the identification of best practices, public agencies are moving toward general convergence and uniformity of action.
These dynamics, however, risk generating top-down policies that are centered on technology, alongside a fragmented bottom-up policy that focuses on decentralization practices.Footnote 24 Seeking to strike a difficult balance, e-government policy appears to be substantially in line with many other European policy areas.Footnote 25 Where European integration has significant implications for national domains, ‘EU effects’ derive also from domestic responses to supranational pressures. While several studies have shown how the activities of many countries have undergone change in relation to policy-making, the ‘impact of Europeanization is typically incremental, irregular, and uneven over times and between locations, national, and subnational’ (Börzel and Risse, Reference Börzel and Risse2000; Featherstone, Reference Featherstone2003: 4; Graziano and Vink, Reference Graziano and Vink2006).
According to Alabau (Reference Alabau2004), a unified and coherent strategy has been displaced, as a result of the introduction of the action plan, in favor of a collection of initiatives linked to different themes, such as the information society, the internal market, and regional development. This fragmentation has been mirrored at the organizational level, due to weak coordination among the various action plans. The e-government program in Europe involves several centers of accountability, various administrative units, and does not have a unified expense budget. Fragmentation is also caused ‘by the redundancy of bureaucratic and executive layers’ (Amoretti, Reference Amoretti2006: 1051).
The continuing emphasis that the EU places on the diffusion of infrastructure – an apparently neutral terrain on which the Union is authorized to intervene – derives from the strategic nature of this policy. E-government is undoubtedly one of the most effective tools for establishing common administrative standards, by defining the computer code and other technology options. This leads us to reconsider Olsen’s suggestion that ‘member States’ preferences for administrative autonomy has to be balanced against the Union’s need for effective and uniform implementation. […] The European context suggests that administrative convergence is more likely to follow from attractiveness than from imposition. Convergence is also more likely to be an artifact of substantive policies than the result of a coherent European administrative policy’ (Olsen, Reference Olsen2002: 925).
If the ‘European administrative space’ is accepted as an effective metaphor to describe the harmonization and homogenization of public administrations in Europe, then we should consider the national and subnational responses to the pressures described earlier (Overeem et al., Reference Overeem, Witters and Peristeras2007). Can we speak of attractiveness in relation to inter-operational platforms, where refusal leads to exclusion from Europe’s institutional and financial network? And what exactly is the nature of this technology-based imposition?
There is no question that the EU continues to lack executive power when compared with national governments. However, it is not clear how the supranational capacity to limit member states’ autonomy in the choice of organizational and functional arrangements should be defined, particularly as it influences so many individual and collective actors.
Along with these questions, the processes described above indicate the difficulties that exist in recognizing and defining the specificity of the European administrative level. On the one hand, these trends coincide with the developmental requirements of the EU, whereas on the other hand, they contain a thrust that goes beyond European borders, involving the establishment of an integrated market (including capitals, goods, and services), the development of a network-supporting global administrative standards and the affirmation of oligopolistic corporations with the power to establish computer-based codes and platforms.Footnote 26
A new political regime is thus emerging, in which private actors exercise public functions, claiming autonomous normative power on the basis of their standard-setting functions. As always, new public–private relations have immediate implications for citizens, as we have seen in the case of security and privacy policy. As the creation of a European administrative space represents an important form of European integration, it is important to clarify the role of private firms in relation to this process. Despite the traditional notion of the ‘neutrality’ of technologies and standards, the creation of the ‘European administrative space’ is constrained by guidelines defined by a restricted elite, comprising key actors and technical committees. Analysis of this problem would make a substantial contribution to current debates about ‘Europeanization from below’.
