Huntingdon College | Political Science | Courses | MIR | What's New?

PSC 302: Comparative Government

Crepaz, Markus and Jurg Steiner, European Democracies

Students' Notes and Updates to Editions since 2008 | older editions by Jurg Steiner

(NY: Pearson Longman)
Last revised 22 July 2015; Compiled by Jeremy Lewis.

Ch.7, Social Movements
Chs. 9, 10: no updates neeeded
Ch.11, Transitions to Democracy
Ch. 12, Nationalism and Ethnic Movements
Ch. 13, Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Societies
Ch. 14, The European Union
Ch.15, Globalization and European Democracies

Crepaz & Steiner Ch.7, Social Movements
by Heith Brown, 2015
Environmental Movement
 - In Europe, as in the U.S., there is an increasing concern about the environment. Concern about the environment in Europe began in the 1960s, primarily with regard to water pollution. In the 1970s, worries began to develop about the environmental impact of nuclear power. During the 1980s, the concern was air pollution and today global warming is the prime concern.
Peace, Third-World, and Antiglobalization Movements
 - The 1950s brought mass protests against nuclear armaments, especially in Great Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany. During the late 1960s, students all over Western Europe organized massive demonstrations against the military involvement of the U.S. in Vietnam. At this time, the European peace movement began to be closely linked with third-world issues. In the 1980s, the professed goal of the peace movement was to distance Europe from the tensions between the Soviets and the U.S. A new lift for the European peace movement came with the war in Iraq.
Women’s Movement
 - In Europe, the notion that not only individuals but also groups have basic rights is much more common than in the U.S. The belief that women are not the equals of men has deep roots in European history. It was not only in popular but also in high culture that women were put in a subservient role. In legal terms, the situation in Europe women has dramatically improved. The movement also has many specific projects. Several studies have shown that Europeans are beginning to develop a more positive attitude toward a stronger role of women in politics and society. Political measures are also being taken to expand the role of women in the business sector.
The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Movement.
 - Began in the 1960s, a period characterized by the turning of established morals on their head and the questioning of traditions and authority. In 1978, the International Lesbian and Gay Association was founded. This organization lobbied and continues to lobby the United Nations and national governments for gay and lesbian human rights. Particularly in Europe, the LGBT movement has gained broad acceptance. Despite such official recognition, there is still much hostility and discrimination toward gays and lesbians emerging from right-wing political parties, particularly in Eastern Europe.
Youth Movement
 - If we compare the younger generation in America and Europe, the most striking difference is a more pessimistic attitude toward the future among young Europeans. The current youth movement is less interested in changing society and more about being left alone and be happy with other young people. Young people insist that they have the right to set their own rules. With regard to the legal situation for the use of drugs, the situation varies greatly from country to country. When we compare the situation of young people in Europe and America, we see that the main lessons seem to go from the new to the old continent. The higher educational system in the U.S. is increasingly being used as a model by European educators.

Crepaz & Steiner Ch.11, Transitions to Democracy
By Heith Brown, 2015
- It is interesting to explore how a transition from dictatorship to democracy may actually work. Of critical importance is the holding of the first free and fair elections.
The Federal Republic of Germany after 1945
 -When the first democratic elections in the Federal Republic of Germany took place in August in 1949, three Western Allies still militarily occupied the country. The Western occupation powers chose the strategy to begin the process of democratization from the bottom, beginning with the local level and then the state level. Two aspects stand out with regard to the transition to democratic elections in the Federal Republic of Germany. First, the Western Allied occupation powers had a strong influence. Second, ordinary citizens were hardly involved.
Italy after 1945
 - Italy was not militarily occupied after the war. The absence of occupation forces allowed Italy to organize its own transition to democratic elections. Italians were able to take the transition to democratic elections mostly in their own hands, although both the Soviet Union and the U.S. tried to influence the election outcome with financial support.
Spain after 1975
 - In 1975, the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco died and his successor Juan Carlos wanted to become a constitutional monarch in a true democracy. Overall this was a smooth transition to democratic elections.
Hungary after 1989
 - The Communists Party embarked on a course of reform. The Hungarian election system shares with Germany in the characteristic that some members of parliament are elected by winner take all in single districts and others by party list proportionality in larger districts. Hungary recently has traveled quite a bumpy road, and there is much frustration in the population with the country’s political leaders. Yet, democracy seems to have been firmly established.
Poland after 1989
 - Poland was the first Communist country to have elections with a real choice for the voters. But the elections in 1989 weren’t entirely free because the Communist party reserved two-thirds of parliamentary seats for themselves. The first completely free elections took place in 1990 at the local level. National parliamentary elections were held in 1991.
Ukraine in 2004
 - Popular resistance was strong, and large numbers of citizens protested the rigged election of 2004. The main lesson of the Ukrainian transition is that ordinary citizens have the power if they dare to go to the streets to protest a corrupt regime.

Ch. 12, Nationalism and Ethnic Movements
Notes by M. Blair Casebere, Oct. 2014
The culture of a country (nationalism and ethnicity) has much to do with identity.
The nation and ethnic groups come are sources of identity.
Nationalism: connotes identification with and loyalty to one’s nation.
Nation: connotes a group of people who believe they are ancestrally related
If a nation corresponds to a country = nation-state
A nation does not always correspond to a country, (e.g: Scots are a nation w/i the UK
A nation can also stretch across the borders of two countries.
When a nation is not a nation-state, one is often also speaking of an ethnic group.
The nation or ethnic group with the most hapless plight in Europe are the Roma.
Places with nationalism and ethnicity problems
• Former Yugoslavia
• Northern Ireland
• Basque Country
Former Yugoslavia is an example of ethnic troubles
Yugoslavia became Communist after WW II, but could keep its distance from the Soviet Union.
In 1991 ordinary citizens who before did not seem to care too much about their ethnic and national identities began to shoot at each other.
What happened to cause nationalism and ethnicity to show its ugly side?
The ethnic and religious composition of former Yugoslavia was indeed very complex.
Over the centuries there was much fighting among the various groups.
In WW II, the power relations changed dramatically between Croats and Serbs
*-After WW II Marshal Tito established a communist regime, and organized the country in such a way that political lines did not follow ethnic lines, because ethnicity was not compatible with Communist ideas, in his opinion.
When the iron fist of Communism was lifted from Bosnia-Herzegovina, the old hatreds emerged again.
(Completing the ethnic picture of Yugoslavia in 1990, we should add that language did contribute to ethnic division.
There were also huge economic inequalities among the ethnic groups.
After 1990, events is Yugoslavia took a dramatic turn;
 Slovenia and Croatia attempted to become independent countries.
 Two conflicting international principles:
Territorial Integrity:  International boarders can only be changed by 1.) peaceful means and 2.) common agreement.
Self-determination: All people who so desire have the right to a sovereign and independent state.
Initially, the international community gave preference to the Territorial integrity principle.
The Slovenian had decided on Sep. 27, 1990, that Yugoslav federal law would NO LONGER apply within the borders of Slovenia.
On December 23, 1990,  89% of Slovenian voters approved independence in a popular referendum
 Croatian voters followed Slovenia’s lead on May 19, 1991,  when 93% approved independence for Croatia.

Despite their warning that “the Federal Government will use all means to stop the republics’ unilateral steps towards independence,” from the Yugoslav PM on June 24, 1991, Slovenia and Croatia formally declared independence on June 25, 1991.
 On June 27, 1991, armed hostilities broke out between the Yugoslav Fed. Army and the Slovenian Militia. By the end of early August, the hostility spread to Croatia.
Shorty after the beginning of hostilities, Germany began to push foe international recognition of Slovenian and Croatian independence.
On January 15, 1992, the EU recognized Slovenia and Croatia as sovereign, independent states. The UN followed suit on May 22, 1992.
Slovenia was homogeneous & was the most Westernized and most economically developed.
In Slovenia, the hostilities were never severe and came to a quick end.
Croatia had more difficulties to overcome than Slovenia on the road to peace.
Heavy fighting erupted, and Yugoslav Fed Army planes attacked the Croatian presidential palace in Zagreb.
-In the international media, the Serbs appeared as the aggressors.
-Under the leadership of Milosevic in the late 1980s and early 1990s, they displayed fierce nationalism and expansionism.
-The Kosovo story with fierce persecution/manslaughter was actually happening on both sides between the Serbs and Croatians.
What about the Krajina Serbs?
Croatia severely restricted the rights of the Krajina Serbs, forcing them to replace Serbian road signs in their villages to Croatian signs.
Personal assurances by the Croatian president that the Krajina Serbs world be given a “special status” were sufficient for the EU to consider the required condition (that Croatia guarantees the rights of ethnic and national groups and minorities in accordance with the commitments subscribed to in the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) fulfilled.
In June 1993, the Krajina Serbs organized a referendum, that later became known as a phantom referendum, in which they decided to join Serbia and the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina in a Greater Serbia.
But, again, the international community did not recognize this referendum,

If the situation in Croatia was complicated, it was even more so in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had 3 major groups:    39% Muslims or Bosniaks,   32% Serbs, 18% Croats
The Bosnia-Herzegovina government was on shaky ground from the start
The EU was aware of the dangers ahead and warned the B-H government “to grant to the members of the minorities and ethnic groups the totality of human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by international law.”
Based on the promise to do so, B-H was recognized by the EU, and, on May 22, 1992, by the UN.

However, horrendous war broke out in B-H.
The worst offenders were the Serbs, particularly with the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica, where Serbs separated men from women and children and executed about 8,000 men.
This was the 1st war since the time of the Nazi crimes that the international community established a war tribunal.
 Macedonia was the fourth Yugoslav republic to be granted independence by the UN in April 1993, under the condition (from the Greeks) that they were named Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
 Later there was dispute over abbreviating this name to Republic of Macedonia. With this dispute over abbreviating the name, Greece has blocked the entry of Macedonia into NATO and the EU.
Then there’s Kosovo, which did not get independence till 2008, which was recognized by some countries but no others, fiercely not by Serbia.)

Insert: Ch.12, Nationalism and Ethnicity Updates only
By Heith Brown, 2015
Northern Ireland
 -Northern Ireland is another trouble spot where nationalism and ethnicity have led to violence. The two groups confronting each other are British Protestants and Irish Catholics. It is a struggle between two cultures unwilling to share the same territory. When the Republic of Ireland obtained its independence in 1921 and Northern Ireland remained British, a parliament with extensive powers was established in Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland. In 1968, violence broke out. The Irish Republican Army reactivated and began using terroristic methods.
Basque Country
 -The Basque country, quite affluent, is located at the northeastern corner of Spain and reaches also into France. The Basques are an ethnic group with a very long tradition. France and Spain tried to suppress Basque language and culture in the respective territories. In 1959 an organization was formed to fight for Basque independence. This group was the Basque Fatherland and Liberty Group, in the Basque Language, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA). The ETA was willing to use terrorist methods to reach its goal. Today, the Basque country is well and alive as a vibrant European region with one part of the Basques also belonging to Spain, the other to France.
Rest of Chapter, by Blair, continued
Other Aspects of Nationalism and Ethnicity
Unlike former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, and Basque, Scotland was a positive example of nationalism and ethnicity. – Keep in mind these notes were taken before 2014
 The Scottish call for independence didn’t lead to violence like the 3 previous examples did.
-The crucial point is that ethnic identity does NOT lead to hostile feelings and violent action against other ethnic groups.
It is important that an identity is not only exclusive but also allows the existence of other identities.
In its history, the great danger for Europe was fierce nationalism leading to many bloody wars. Fortunately, there are signs of a multilevel order emerging in Europe, with citizens still having a national identity but in addition also European and regional identities.
Historically, it is quite a new phenomenon that Europeans feel part of nation-states, due to their slow conversion to follow one language.
European history of the 19th and 20th centuries has shown how the concept of the nation-state, based on exclusively defined national i.d, can lead to catastrophic wars. The temptation is great for a n-s to try to expand its borders and thus expand its national sovereignty.
National interest risk clashing with one another at any time.
The idea for a more stable and cooperative European order is to redefine the concept of sovereignty in less national terms.
The nation-states would still exists, but some of their power would be transferred upward to the European level and some downward to the regional level.
The EU is characterized by both processes: a process of regionalization, and a process of supranational integration.
For a new political order in Europe to be established, it is also necessary that regional political units are allowed to cut across national borders
There is a strong Tyrol identity, but in the South it’s coupled with an Italian identity and in the North with an Austrian identity, and both North and South have some form of European identity.
Cross-national regions may also grow out of functional economic circumstances.
Ex: The agglomeration of Basel form an economic unity across the national borders of France, Germany, and Switzerland.
Cross-national economic regions, such as the Euro-region Pomerania or Euro-region Karpatian, also emerge in Central and Eastern Europe, showing just how important regional thinking has become in Europe, -even in the regions cut across national borders.
If Europe moves in the direction of a multilayered order with cross-cutting borders, one may ask whether such an order is too complex
The traditional organization based on nation-states is just too rigid.
Some problems need to be handled by the nation-state, and others at the European level, and still others by the regional level.
The real issue is whether Europeans are able to adjust their thinking styles and their identities to such a complex order.
Symbolically, the new European order may best be expressed by the variety of flags that one would see in Europe.
Many people from former Yugoslavia, Turkey, or Africa try to find work in Europe.
Many refugees also try to come to Europe
Often, the line b/t immigrant workers and refugees is blurred.
In former times, refugees were no problem when they came in small numbers from Communist countries.
Most of them were highly educated, and during the time of the economic boom they were easily integrated to their host countries.
The welcome for them soon wore out in Europe.
Some neighborhoods in the big European cities were transformed into ethnic enclaves of a mixture of refugees and immigrant workers.
All over Europe, immigrants from LDCs have established their own subcultures in the big cities. This new multi-ethnicity makes Europeans ill and hostile.
After Sep 11, 2001, and the war in Iraq, tensions further increased with the Muslims in Europe.
-There are increasing complaints that many Muslims become fundamentalist, which are unwilling to integrate into European Societies.
-This conflict came most visible to public attention when Theo Van Gogh was assassinated in 2004 by a Muslim in response to his short film, Submission.
In the case of immigration issues, Europeans have it more difficult than Americans, who live in a county with a tradition of immigration.
In Europe there is the risk that, because of immigration, cleavages will become increasingly deeper between natives and immigrants.
Top of page

Ch. 13 Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Societies
Notes by M. Blair Casebere, 2014
How can democratic stability be attained in such deeply divided societies?
By power sharing/consociational theory
Consociational democracies stand in contrast to competitive majoritarian democracies.
Development of the Theory of Power Sharing
The distinction between consolational/power sharing and competitive democracies was first made by Arend Lijphart and Gerhard Lehmbruch at the 1967 World Congress of the International Political Science Association in Brussel.
Their comparison brought up the question of which factors might account for the level of democratic stability.
In 1956, Gabriel A. Almond, who identified the political culture of a country as a crucial factor, postulated that a homogeneous political culture, like the US and G.B (the two Anglo-American countries), is conductive to democratic stability, whereas a fragmented political culture, as in the large European countries (France, Germany, and Italy), tends to lead to democratic instability.
However, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland seem to contradict Almond’s hypothesis because they appeared culturally fragmented yet democratically stable.
Thus, Lijphart and Lehmbrush hypothesized, Culturally fragmented countries could hope to attain democratic stability if they used consociational decision making, rather than competitive decision making.
There are 3 crucial concepts of power sharing/ consociational theory
• The concept of being culturally fragmented: For a to be culturally fragmented,the ascriptive and achieved attributes must differ.
o Ascriptive attributes might contrast with achieved attributes
o (Vocab.
? Ascriptive attributes: Race, language, religion, and historical roots.
• Are present from birth; they are virtually permanent
? Achieved attributes: Occupation, education, ect.
• Result from individual achievement, can be changed relatively easily.
• The concept of what distinguished consociational from competitive decision making.
o Four characteristic of Consociational decision making
? Executive cabinets consist of representatives from all subcultures.
• Ex: If a country is divided b/t a Catholic and Protestant subculture, than a grand coalition would occur (both subcultures share power in the executive cabinet.
? There is a veto power for each subculture on matters involving it essential interest
? Parliamentary elections, the appointment of public officials, and the distribution of public funds among the subcultures are guided by the principle of proportionality.
• Ex: If Catholic make up 40% of the population, they should receive 40% of the top positions in the armed forces.
• Each subculture should receive its quota
? Each subculture has a great deal of autonomy in regulating their own affairs—having control over educational and cultural matters, in particular.

• The crucial point in Lijphart and Lehmbruch’s argument is that consociational decision making increases the probability of democratic stability in culturally fragmented societies.

• The application of consociational devices is even more necessary when the cleavage structure of society is reinforcing, than cross-cutting.

• A reinforcing cleavage structure is one in which a society is not only divided along one dimension, i.e language, that is overlaied by additional cleavages such as religion, region, and race.

• Cleavages “reinforce” each other, [because any member of society sees the “other” as not only different in terms of languages, but also in terms of region and race, and perhaps even additional differences,] leading to a very high potential for conflict.

• Cross-cutting cleavages are less problematic for social harmony because they slice up society into microcosm of differences, and no single group is large enough to impose itself on others.

• Whether a fragmented country properly use consociationalism or not depends mostly on the wisdom and foresight of the subcultures’ leaders.
• Consociational decision making is facilitated if at least some of the favorable conditions are present.

o None of the subcultures has a majority
o The subcultures have clear boundaries and, therefore, can easily be identified.
o There is a relative economic equality among the subcultures
o Each subculture has preeminent leaders who are internally respected and can speak for the interest of their subculture.
o There is some overarching loyalty across all subcultures to the country as a whole, the very existence of which is not questioned.
o The population of the county is relatively small
o The country is under international pressure that is seen by all the subcultures in the same light.
o The country has some tradition of accommodation and compromise.
o The overall load of unresolved problems on the country (unemployment, inflation, ect.) are not very great.
• In Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, these conditions were most favorable, which allow their leaders to practice consociational decision making.
Critique of the Theory of Power Sharing
The Theory of power sharing cannot be tested under a controlled experiment.
Variables, such as the social stratification of Austria can change noticeably.
A precondition for testing a theory is the ability to measure its variables.
With regard to fragmentation, it is often stated that consociational theory is applicable to Switzerland because of its linguistic fragmentation into German, French, Italian, and Romansh. Other researchers argue, however, that despite the existence of four language, Swiss society is quite homogeneous, so consolational theory is not applicable to the Swiss case.
Surveys are conducted at the attitudinal level, but attitudes often do not translate easily into behavior.
Hence, we must also look at behavioral data.
Although surveys and intermarriages data may speak to the strength of subcultural identity, additional data are necessary to determine how a subcultural identity is expressed in a politically relative way.
Also, there is always some issue in the national parliament on whether French speakers vote more or less as bloc.
 Are these indicators sufficient for classifying decision making among Swiss language groups as consociational?
Similar difficulties appear in trying to determine the prevailing political decision mode within a country.
Power sharing and Deliberation
It is not enough to have power sharing institutions; there MUST also be a cooperative mentality among the people who up the institutions.
No good measurements were ever developed to get an empirical handle on the concept. Therefore, empirical research on consociationalism was always strong on institutional aspects but weak on the cultural aspects of attitudes and values.
The challenge for future research is to replace the concept of spirit of accommodation with a concept that is theoretically more grounded.
The key aspect of the model is that politics is not seen exclusively as a power game of personal and group interests but also as a place where the force of the better argument has some weight.
The empirical question will always be how close or how far away a particular political debate is from the ideal type, where as many people as possible are involved in mutual discourse, arguments are justified by logic *so that rational dialogue can emerge, and all actors are truthful in their statements not misleading or trying to deceive each other.
Processes of mutual humanization should reduce the risk that one kills people simply because they belong to other ethnic, rational, religious or language groups
Normative Evaluation of Power Sharing
The concept of power sharing has become very much a part of the everyday political dialogue in many countries around the world
A common criticism is that power sharing really amounts to an elite cartel
 How can citizens hold the ruling elites accountable if they cannot replace them with a set of elites in opposition?
 Power sharing, however, does not necessarily mean that power rests with a closed elite cartel.
 In a modern form, consociationalism can be made compatible with a spirited public dialogue.
 The role of opposition is not taken up by an opposition party (like the Westminster model), but directly by the citizens. Citizens can inform themselves about the various policy alternatives discussed in the grand coalition.
A second criticism that can be maintained is that the concept of democratic stability, which is central to consociational theory, is problematic, unless by saying democratic stability one simply means that a democracy is maintained. BUT
 The real question is how good a democracy is.
 If questioned this way, one arrives at a broad definition of democracy, which should include at least these 7 qualities
o Civil Liberties
o Citizen participation
o Competitive elections
o Absence of severe violence
o Civility in political dialogue
o Respect for minorities
o Equal opportunities
Another criticism is that consociational scholars have become political advocates ? causing them to become actors in the political arena.
Have consoicational scholars with their consulting activities become undue advocates of the pattern of consociational decision making?
 In our understanding, Poli. Sci.tists always have some influence.
Just by teaching and writing, the influence how their listeners and readers think about the world.
Top of page

Ch. 14, The European Union
by Heith Brown, 2015
History of European Integration
 -After the First World War people became active in the Pan-European movement, which demanded the unification of Europe so that the war could never again break out. Winston Churchill called for a kind of United States of Europe. The first step was the foundation of the Council of Europe, which is still active today and plays a consultative role. The Council has also established the European Social Charter, expanding its activities to the area of social rights. The current EU had its institutional begging in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) 1951. Later established, were the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). These three communities were commonly called the European Community (EC). In 1986, its member countries signed the Single European Act, which wanted to set up a common market for goods, labor, capital, and services by the end of 1992. Then the EC countries signed the Treaty on European Union (EU) to strengthen the political and monetary ties in the community.
Council of Ministers
 - When the EC began to operate under the terms of the Treaty of Rome, the Council of Ministers was considered to be its legislature, operating by the unanimity principle. The council still has important legislative functions, but it increasingly shares these functions with the European Parliament.
European Council
 - The European Council brings together the chief executives of the 27 member countries. Overall, the European Council has become the most important institution of the EU. It is here that the basic political compromises are worked out.
European Commission
 - The commissioners work full time for the EU. There are 27 of them one for each country. A president, who is chosen by agreement of the member countries, heads the commission. The commission directs a large bureaucracy at the headquarters in Brussels. The commission meets at least once a week and each member is responsible for specific policy areas.
European Parliament
 - The European voters directly elect the European Parliament. The members of the Parliament sit in chambers based on party affiliation and not nationality. In the parliamentary system of government to which Europeans are accustomed, it is crucial that parliament exercises power in the selection of the executive cabinet. The parliament plays four different roles according to the issue at hand: 1) agreement of European Parliament required, 2) European Parliament has no say, 3) cooperation procedure between European Parliament and Council of Ministers, 4) co-decision procedure between European Parliament and Council of Ministers.
European Court of Justice
 -The European Court of Justice (ECJ), has 27 judges who are appointed by common accord of the national governments of the member countries. The ECJ has become very important in the legal system of the EU. Individuals, national governments, and the institutions of the union must respect the rulings of the court. There is no European national guard to enforce EU law, but the ECJ can rely quite well on the member countries to enforce its rulings.
European Bureaucracy
 - The Eurocrats have an obvious career interest in the continuation of EU operations. In addition, many lobbyists working in Brussels have a personal professional interest in the survival of the union.
What does the EU do?
 - What the EU does depends on the resources available. They are financed by three elements: traditional own resources, value-added tax, and contributions. These are used to mainly fund two components: Sustainable growth and high-quality and safe agricultural products and to protect the environment.
-16 of the 27 of the EU use the euro system

Ch.15, Globalization and European Democracies
By Heith Brown, 2015

What is Globalization?
 - Globalization is a process whose origins are directly related to advances in technology, particularly transportation technologies. The process of globalization has accelerated in more recent years with the development of information and communication technologies. The consequences of these developments and the impact of the WTO on the world economy are staggering. The consequences of globalization not only have an economic impact but also culturally. Along with technological developments and cultural adaptation, migration is also a central element of globalization. The clearest example of increasing interdependence is the environment. Globalization can be understood as continuing process of integration and increasing interdependence between countries.
How should Globalization be measured?
 -The investment company A.T. Kearny together with Foreign Policy Magazine developed a globalization index consisting of four categories: economic, integration, personal contact, technological connectivity, and political engagement. A central predictor for the degree to which a country is globalized is simply its size. The smaller a country, the more globalized it has to be economically.
The Challenges of Globalization for European Democracies
 - Europeans generally favor equality over liberty, for these reasons the process of globalization should particularly affect European countries. There are three main challenges to European democracies that directly arise as a result of globalization: maintaining the generous European welfare state, the unprecedented levels of immigration into many of the old European countries, and the sense of loss of community across many of the same countries.
The Welfare State and Globalization
 - Globalization’s biggest challenge to national governments is dealing with the loss of control over domestic politics. In order to fund national health care, public pensions, stipends, unemployment insurance, and many other public programs, modern welfare states rely on tax revenues. Due to Globalization and tax revenues, business have the option to out source their business to cut costs. Capital has advantage in this globalized world for two reasons: the owners of capital can put significant pressures on governments to provide inducements to the companies to stay by promising lower taxes, fewer social services for their workers, and reduce the influence of unions. The second advantage is when it comes to choosing a new location for production.
Immigration and Globalization
 - The second challenge to European democracies arises with increased immigration into Europe. Over the past decade, Europe has been experiencing increasing illegal immigration, in the form of human trafficking. European democracies face two separate challenges: first, the political ramifications of legal and illegal immigration; and second, how to integrate those who have been given legal status in a European country.