David Hanley,"Christian Democracy and the Paradoxes of
Europeanization: Flexibility, Competition and Collusion,"
Party Politics, 8 (July, 2002), 463-481.
We begin with Robert Ladrech's definition of
Europeanization, viz. 'a process by which individuals and
organizational actors and institutions respond to the
altered condition of their operating environment due to the
changes wrought by the development of the European Union'
(2000). This definition stresses the adaptive response of
organizations. Ladrech suggests several axes along which one
might measure party response or, if one prefers, the degree
of parties' Europeanization. Programmatic change is the most
visible, followed by organizational change. Ladrech also
highlights possible changes to the nature of party
competition or party--government relationships and, lastly,
changes to relations beyond national party systems. Some of
these categories are very broad, and one cannot treat them
all in a single article; nor can one take a bottom-up
approach focusing on all the individual Christian Democratic
(CD) parties in order to assess their degree of
Europeanization, for obvious reasons of space.
Figures and Tables:
Table 1: National Parties' Dates of Joining EPP
Table 2. EPP and EDU member parties compared. As at April
Europeanization reveals itself to be a matrix of powerful
pressures not always pulling in the same direction. It is a
complex process that proceeds at different speeds in
different places; its outcomes are variable and not always
controllable by EPP. It is unhelpful to see it as some
inevitable process which will one day produce a tidy set of
Europarties. The interplay between national and
supranational actors makes such an outcome anything but