tems for which analysis is aimed include the role of parliaments, strengthened executives, new policy networks and coalitions, administrative innovation, and the effects of European Court of Justice rulings on national legal systems. Bearing in mind our operating definition of Europeanization, it seems clear that what most analysts have been engaged in is precisely to understand the direction and change in the logic of behaviour of institutions and policy entrepreneurs stimulated by advancements in the EU institutional and policy competences. Kohler-Koch s definition specifically draws attention to the extra-national dimension of changed behaviour and new strategies for goal attainment. The Ladrech/Radaelli definition suggests that change may be an incremental process, but in some cases, especially where a dramatic EU input into domestic political systems has occurred, for instance the launch of the single currency, changed or altered patterns of behaviour may be more rapid. Europeanization may be understood much more as a response to a type of challenge, whether of a marginal degree such as developing or building relationships with recently introduced actors and institutions, or more significantly to the relevance of an existing organisation and its ability to attain certain indispensable goals. If we understand Europeanization as the process by which individuals and organisational actors and institutions respond to the altered conditions generated by the development of the European Union since the launch of the Single European Act, then a single or linear line of response is virtually impossible. Rather, variable responses, even within single national political systems, are most likely. , As Radaelli has noted, Europeanization is not to be confused with convergence or harmonisation, although these may be manifestations of the response. Unitary or federal territorial designs; the mix of public and private components of the economy; longstanding political cultural traditions; patterns of party competition, etc., All of these factors condition the response of actors to the penetration of EU inputs into their operating environments. Although it is not the focus of this paper, one may also understand that the response of national actors to EU inputs may influence the supranational level as well, thereby suggesting that in some cases we may identify a reflexive relationship. When we turn to political parties, it becomes clear that additional constraints exist that influence the direction and shape of party organisational change.
Europeanization and political parties
analyses of Europeanization and parties and party systems are a rather recent feature of the academic debate. To date, the development of a potential European dimension of party systems has dominated the field, such as it is, and unsurprisingly regarding parties, this is tied in most cases to the organisation of and elections to the European Parliament (see, eg, Hix and Lord, 1997, and Pedersen, 1996). In addition, the term Europeanization has been used by some, eg Moxon-Browne (1999) and Daniels (1998), to denote a policy and strategic change by certain parties involving movement from a negative to a positive position regarding EU membership. Turning to national party systems, Mair (2000) finds very little impact of European integration on national party systems. Indeed, I suggest that of the many areas of domestic politics which may have experienced an impact from Europe, it is party systems in particular that have perhaps proved to be most impervious to change < span align = "justify"> (p. 4). By this statement Mair means party systems have experienced little or no direct change to the format and mechanics of party systems. However, he makes a significant qualification when addressing a potential indirect impact arising from the European integration process: the first place, European integration increasingly operates to constrain the freedom of movement of national governments, and hence encourages a hollowing out of competition among those parties with a governing aspiration. As such, it promotes a degree of consensus across the mainstream and an inevitable reduction in the range of policy alternatives available to voters. Second, by taking Europe itself out of national competition, and by working within a supranational structure that clearly lacks democratic accountability, party and political leaderships do little to counteract the notion of the irrelevance of conventional politics (pp. 48-49). Mair does not intentionally analyse the impact of European integration individual parties. Accordingly, in the end, the absence of a genuine European level party system explains the insularity of national party systems from the impact...
