Alexander Mesarovich argues that informal cultures are an often-overlooked aspect of the enlargement process. While the formal changes are essential, socialising candidate state policymakers into the EU’s 'ways of being' is just as – if not more – important in producing deeper and more durable reform
From legal to regulatory changes, from updates to physical and digital infrastructure, to passing the Acquis Communautaire (which is now over 100,000 legislative acts), joining the EU is extraordinarily difficult. Why do states bother with it? And what makes some more successful than others?
Two interconnected explanations emerge for why states pursue reforms: reward-seeking behaviour, and socialisation. According to the External Incentives Model, states undertake reforms in exchange for tangible benefits, such as financial aid and the prospect of EU membership. We can summarise this as a transactional approach: 'If you pay me, I will reform'.
Alternatively, we could view accession as a social process, where policymakers support reforms not for immediate rewards but because they believe it is the right course of action. For them, improving governance or combatting corruption is intrinsically valuable, aligning with the broader ethos of EU integration. In this sense, accession reshapes beliefs about what is 'good' among policymakers in candidate countries.
Understanding the norms and pressures shaping policymakers’ views offers insight into why policymakers adopt reform agendas
Focusing on policymakers rather than states as monolithic entities is crucial, as policymakers are the true agents of accession. This perspective highlights the importance of the social and professional environments that influence their decision-making. National benefits, such as better infrastructure or streamlined governance, often feel abstract to individuals. Similarly, the notion of 'socialising' an entire country oversimplifies the process. Instead, understanding the networks, norms, and pressures shaping policymakers’ views offers deeper insights into how and why policymakers adopt reform agendas.
Policymakers, like everyone else, exist within a network of social connections — friends, family, colleagues, and community ties. Their position as decision-makers does not exempt them from the informal influences that shape personal beliefs and perceptions of the world. Rather, these connections play a pivotal role in shaping how they interpret their responsibilities and priorities.
The influence of social connections complicates the assumption that state-level rewards alone drive policymakers. Personal considerations, such as career advancement or maintaining social standing, often carry equal or greater weight. In some cases, this manifests as overt corruption — bending the law for personal gain. More often, it subtly reframes how policymakers perceive state-level rewards. For example, while improving national infrastructure may benefit the country, immediate political concerns, such as re-election, may take precedence for an individual policymaker.
Policymakers’ social worlds shape their beliefs about what is 'good'
Even deeper, policymakers’ social worlds shape their beliefs about what is 'good'. Enacting anti-discrimination laws might align with broader governance goals. However, if friends, family, or religious leaders frame such policies as threatening a 'traditional' way of life, these influences can override abstract notions of the public good. Just as social connections define the reality for individuals in society, they also shape the worldview and decision-making of policymakers, reinforcing the need to examine the personal and informal networks behind institutional actions.
In my research, I found that collaborative informal cultures are key to fostering deeper, more sustainable reform processes. Slovenia is a prime example. There, reforms were implemented swiftly and translated into lasting changes in political practices. This success was bolstered by a highly collaborative culture within the parliament, characterised by frequent social interactions among members, including unique initiatives like forming a parliamentary Dixieland jazz band. Such informal connections helped build trust and a shared commitment to reform, extending beyond mere legislative compliance.
In contrast, Croatia’s reform efforts were notably shallower, adhering more to the letter than the spirit of the changes. The disparity is reflected in ongoing challenges, such as a prominent corruption case involving a former prime minister and senior figures in the previous ruling party. This highlights how the absence of a cohesive informal culture can hinder genuine progress, leaving reforms vulnerable to superficial implementation, and undermining their long-term impact.
The comparison underscores the importance of informal collaboration in complementing formal reform processes. It shows how the culture surrounding decision-making can significantly influence the depth and durability of institutional change.
The informal dynamics of policymaking, institutional operation, and EU accession have long been overlooked in favour of formal processes. Historically, the EU has struggled to recognise and address these subtler influences. As recent authoritarian retrenchment in Central and Eastern Europe demonstrates, focusing exclusively on regulatory changes is insufficient. Transforming beliefs and practices requires a deeper, more sustained effort.
Focusing exclusively on regulatory changes is insufficient to overturn authoritarian retrenchment in Central and Eastern Europe
For the EU, adapting its approach to better account for these informal factors is essential. Historically, enlargement has been delayed by concerns that new members could complicate decision-making, introduce corruption, or foster authoritarianism. While largely discredited, these arguments are not without merit. The challenge lies in managing these risks while still achieving transformative change.
My research suggests that the solution lies in investing in the social practices of enlargement. The process must go beyond formal negotiations to actively engage policymakers in candidate states with the EU’s values and 'ways of being'. Informal practices shape political outcomes, and meaningful change requires the EU to engage with these communities directly. While the EU cannot embed itself in every social connection, fostering relationships within key informal networks can facilitate deeper reforms.
By building trust and forming genuine connections, the EU can influence policymakers to align their practices and beliefs with those of the broader European community. After all, when people feel part of a shared social world, they are more likely to become lasting allies.
Alexander earned his PhD (Politics) at the University of Edinburgh, with a thesis analysing the impact of informal political networks on the EU accession processes of Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia.
His thesis has been adapted for publication as
Europeanization and Informal Networks in Southeastern Europe
Routledge, 2024
Since finishing his PhD, Alexander has been a teaching assistant at the University of Edinburgh and the University of Stirling, and has worked as a Temporary Lecturer in Politics at the University of Strathclyde.
He has also worked on the H2020 projects ENGAGE, on EU external action, and REDEMOS, on EU democracy support given to the Eastern Partnership.
Alexander has published in Europe-Asia Studies and International Studies Quarterly, written book chapters and working papers, presented at numerous conferences, and has contributed to research for the US government’s Chairmans Action Group advising the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
At the EUI, as part of the UnLib project, Alexander is studying the impact of transnational linkages on the diffusion of populism and illiberalism across Central and Eastern Europe.
This involves using social network analysis paired with elite interviews to understand the impact of such networks on the diffusion of populism and illiberalism.
Alexander’s research interests include populism and illiberalism, diffusion, Europeanisation, informality, the politics of Central and Southeastern Europe, and EU politics more generally.
He has run undergraduate seminars on UK politics, political theory, and comparative methodology, and has lectured on US national security policy, EU internal and external politics, and democratisation.
