This paper applies theories of international socialization to examine the impact of European Union contact on the professional socialization of public officials in Central and Eastern Europe. Based on a survey of officials in seven new member states, the paper finds that daily work on European Union issues is associated with favourable attitudes towards merit-based civil service governance. The distinction between types of European Union contact shows that officials dealing with ‘reception’-related European Union activities such as the transposition and implementation of European Union policies develop more meritocratic attitudes. By contrast, ‘projection’-related activities that involve personal contact with European Union officials have no effect. The paper concludes that the small but consistent impact of European Union contact on professional socialization promotes the silent professionalization of public administration in Central and Eastern Europe.
AbadieAImbensGW (2006) Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica74(1): 235–267.
2.
AngristJDPischkeJS (2008) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricists Companion, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
AtkinsonC (2010) Does soft power matter? A comparative analysis of student exchange programs 1980–2006. Foreign Policy Analysis6(1): 1–22.
4.
BakerFKimSH (2004) Item Response Theory: Parameter Estimation techniques, 2nd ed. Revised and Explained. New York: Marcel Dekker.
5.
BeyersJ (2005) Multiple embeddedness and socialization in Europe: The case of Council officials. International Organization59(4): 899–936.
6.
BeyersJ (2010) Conceptual and methodological challenges in the study of European socialization. Journal of European Public Policy17(6): 909–920.
7.
BoerzelT (2002) Pace-setting, foot-dragging, and fence-sitting: Member state responses to Europeanisation. Journal of Common Market Studies40(2): 193–214.
8.
Bulmer S and Burch M (2009) The Europeanisation of Whitehall: UK Central Government and the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
9.
CacioppoJPettyR (1979) Effect of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37(1): 97–109.
10.
CamyarI (2010) Europeanization, domestic legacies and administrative reforms in Central and Eastern Europe: A comparative analysis of Hungary and the Czech Republic. Journal of European Integration30(2): 137–155.
11.
CheckelJ (2005) International institutions and socialization in Europe: Introduction and framework. International Organization59(4): 801–826.
12.
DahlströmCLapuenteVTeorellJ (2012) The merit of meritocratization: Politics, bureaucracy, and the institutional deterrents of corruption. Political Research Quarterly65(3): 656–668.
13.
DimitrovaA (2002) Enlargement, institution-building, and the EU’s administrative capacity requirement. West European Politics25(4): 171–190.
14.
DimitrovaA (2005) Europeanization and civil service reform in Central and Eastern Europe. In: SchimmelfennigFSedelmeierU (eds) The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 71–90.
15.
DimitrovaA (2010) The new member states of the EU in the aftermath of enlargement: Do new European rules remain empty shells?Journal of European Public Policy17(1): 137–148.
16.
EaglyAChaikenS (1993) The Psychology of Attitude Change, San Diego: Harcourt Brace Janovich.
17.
EgebergM (1999) Transcending Intergovernmentalism? Identity and role perceptions of national officials in EU decision-making. Journal of European Public Policy6(3): 456–474.
18.
EvansPRauchJE (1999) Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of Weberian state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review64(5): 748–765.
19.
Falkner G and Treib O (2008) Three worlds of compliance or four? The EU15 compared to the new member states. Journal of Common Market Studies 46(3): 293–313.
20.
Fink-HafnerD (2014) Post-accession politicization of national EU policy coordination: The case of Slovenia. Public Administration92(1): 39–54.
21.
FlockhartT (2004) ‘Master and novices’: Socialization and social learning through the NATO parliamentary assembly. International Relations18(3): 361–380.
22.
FreyburgT (2011) Transgovernmental networks as catalysts for democratic change? EU functional cooperation with Arab authoritarian regimes and socialization of involved state officials into democratic governance. Democratization18(4): 1001–1025.
23.
FreyburgT (2015) Transgovernmental policy networks as an apprenticeship in democracy? Socialization into democratic governance through cross-national activities. International Studies Quarterly59(1): 59–72.
24.
FreyburgTLavenexSSchimmelfennigF (2009) EU promotion of democratic governance in the neighbourhood. Journal of European Public Policy16(6): 916–934.
25.
GheciuA (2005) Security instruments as agents of socialization? NATO and the ‘New Europe’. International Organization46(3): 293–313.
26.
GoetzKH (2005) The new members states and the EU: Responding to Europe. In: BulmerSLequesneC (eds) The Member States of the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 254–280.
27.
Grzymala-Busse A (2007) Rebuilding Leviathan: Party Competition and State Exploitation in Post-Communist Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HofmannHCH (2008) Mapping the European administrative space. West European Politics31(4): 662–676.
29.
HillePKnillC (2006) ‘It’s the bureaucracy, stupid’. The implementation of the Acquis Communautaire in EU candidate countries, 1999–2003. European Union Politics7(4): 531–552.
30.
HoDEKosukeIKingG (2007) Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis15(3): 199–236.
31.
HoogheL (2005) Several roads lead to international norms, but few via international socialization: A case study of the European Commission. International Organization59(4): 861–898.
32.
HoogheL (2012) Images of Europe: How Commission officials conceive their institution’s role. Journal of Common Market Studies50(1): 87–111.
33.
KernHLHainmuellerJ (2009) Opium for the masses: How foreign media can stabilize authoritarian regimes. Political Analysis17(4): 377–399.
34.
KingGHonakerJJosephA (2001) Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review95(1): 49–69.
35.
KnillC (2001) The Europeanisation of National Administrations: Patterns of Change and Persistence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
KopeckyPSpirovaM (2011) Jobs for the boys? Patterns of patronage in post-communist Europe. West European Politics34(5): 897–921.
37.
Linz J and Stepan A (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
38.
MastenbroekEPrincenS (2010) Time for EU matters: The Europeanization of Dutch central government. Public Administration88(1): 154–169.
Meyer-SahlingJH (2011) The durability of EU civil service policy in Central and Eastern Europe after accession. Governance24(2): 231–260.
41.
Meyer-SahlingJHvan StolkC (2015) A case of partial convergence: The Europeanization of central government in Central and Eastern Europe. Public Administration93(1): 230–247.
42.
Meyer-SahlingJHYesilkagitK (2010) Differential legacy effects: Three propositions on the impact of administrative traditions in Europe East and West. Journal of European Public Policy18(2): 311–322.
43.
MokkenR (1971) A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis, Berlin: De Gruyter.
44.
NeshkovaMKostadinovaT (2012) The effectiveness of administrative reform in new democracies. Public Administration Review72(3): 324–333.
PainterMPetersBG (2010) Administrative Traditions: Inheritances and Transplants in Comparative Perspective, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
47.
PapadimitriouDPhinnemoreD (2004) Europeanization, conditionality and domestic change: The twinning exercise and administrative reform in Romania. Journal of Common Market Studies42(3): 619–639.
48.
Risse T, Ropp C and Sikkink K (eds) (2013) The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
RubinDB (1987) Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys, New York: John Wiley.
50.
SamejimaF (1969) Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement34: 101–114.
51.
SekhonJ (2011) Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software42(7): 1–52.
52.
SigalasE (2010) Cross-border mobility and European identity: The effectiveness of inter- group contact during the ERASMUS year abroad. European Union Politics11(2): 241–265.
53.
SmithERMackieDM (2007) Social Psychology, 3rd ed. London: Psychology Press.
54.
TrondalJPetersBG (2013) The rise of European Administrative Space. Lessons learned. Journal of European Public Policy20(2): 295–307.
55.
TrondalJvan der BergCSuvarierolS (2008) The compound machinery of government: The case of seconded officials in the European Commission. Governance21(2): 253–274.
56.
Van der ArkLA (2007) Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software20(11): 1–19.
57.
VerheijenT (2010) The new member states of the EU: Constructed and historical traditions and reform trajectories. In: PainterMPetersBG (eds) Administrative Traditions: Inheritances and Transplants in Comparative Perspective, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 217–233.
58.
ZubekRStaronovaK (2012) Organizing for EU implementation: The Europeanization of government ministries in Estonia, Poland, and Slovenia. Public Administration90(4): 937–956.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
