Munich Personal RePEc Archive Challenging path dependence? Ideational mapping of nationalism and the EU’s transformative power: The case of infrastructural politics in SEE Klimov, Blagoy University of Sheffield 31 August 2010 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/30985/ MPRA Paper No. 30985, posted 26 May 2011 19:08 UTC UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD Department of Politics Challenging Path Dependence? Ideational Mapping of Nationalism and the EU’s transformative power: The Case of Infrastructural Politics in SEE Blagoy D. Klimov Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD Sheffield August 2010 Dedicated to all those, who dream of a future world, where nations would never again go to the field of war, but only compete in the field of culture, science and knowledge. To my grandfather Alexander Klimov, who was one of those dreamers… ii Abstract: The research employs historical institutionalism, amplified by ideas to explain path dependent political behaviour. The theoretical framework is applied to explain political behaviour in the Balkans, where Greece and Bulgaria, despite many similarities have developed highly antagonistic path-dependent policies of obstruction towards each other that remained remarkably persistent, regardless of changing external factors during most of the XX c. The main hypothesis is that such behaviour could be properly understood neither by leverage of Great Powers, nor by ancient hatreds, but by exploring the crucial role, played by path dependent institutionalized ideas (programmatic beliefs) in shaping policy outcomes. Only when ideas change- policy change does happen. The main task of this research is to outline historical ideational impediments to Balkan regional cooperation and explore if regional cooperation is attainable. The second hypothesis argues that after the 1990s EU was such a powerful idea, that for the first time since the Independence revolutions, started to successfully challenge old institutional settings in the region, that have persisted for decades, even centuries. Political elites in the region encountered a new complicated situation, having to balance between the traditional nationalist ideational contexts and the `integration and cooperation´ ideational impetus, coming from outside. The implications of this tension between continuity and change are explored in the case studies on cooperation over common infrastructure projects between Bulgaria and Greece in the period 1990- 2010. So, we are considering the long-term historical force of path dependence and the possibility it can be rooted out, or at least significantly modified. The research is not only an endeavour to study the EU´s role in the Balkans, but to contribute to the growing debate in the field about the role of ideas in political life and to use such theoretical discussions, and the comparative method, to enhance our understanding of the evolution of modern EU states. Key words: historical institutionalism, ideas, constructivist institutionalism, ideational theory, political decision making, path dependence, multi-level governance, democratization, Europeanization, nationalism, national doctrines, Megale Idea, San Stefano, regional cooperation, transport infrastructure, Balkans, Balkan cooperation, Greece, Bulgaria. iii Acknowledgments: I would like to thank first and foremost my supervisor Prof. Andrew Taylor for his invaluable guidance and great intellectual input in the project and for the immense amount of patience and constant support during all my ups and downs during this seven-year-long journey. To Andrew is due more than thanks. Thanks to Prof. Jean Grugel for her support of my project in front of the Overseas Research Scheme and her insightful comments, especially in the initial and final stages of the project. A great deal of gratitude goes to Ms Sarah Cooke for her always-open- door policy, for the smile and braveness with which she faced our zillions of little problems, technicalities, questions, forms, finance issues, for the psychological comfort she managed to create and last but not least thanks for being so human, Sarah! I am indebted to Prof. Sherri Berman and Prof. Mark Blyth for their comments on the theoretical framework and for making me believe in the power of ideas. I would like to thank Prof Anastasia Karakasidou for her invaluable comments on the chapters on Greece and Bulgaria during our meeting in the European Parliament in June 2008 and for the courage of her work “Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood”. On the financial side, I am indebted to the British Government for granting me the ORS Scholarship, to the Department of Politics of the University of Sheffield for granting me with three year departmental fee waiver and to Mr. George Soros, who provided two Global Supplementary Grants which facilitated the fieldwork part of the research. I would like to thank Revd Will Lamb who went through most of my drafts and was my host during my Sheffield stay. Gratitude to all friends that supported me during the different stages of writing of this research in Sheffield, Budapest, Vienna, London, Brussels, Sofia, Varna, Boston and Provincetown. Thanks to Kostadin Kostadinov and Georgi Drakaliev for helping me in my fieldwork trip to Northern Greece and the regions of Lerin (Florina), Kostur (Kastoria) and Voden (Edhessa). Special thanks to Elisaveta Zanesheva from Enidzhe Vardar and Marjan Rizinski from Skopje for being freedom-of-mind fighters and visionaries who inspired me a lot. Thanks to Momo and Alex; to Nadya, Violeta and Nedko for being real friends. Thanks to Mijo, Elena, Svetlyo and Maria Dantz for making me continue, when I felt discouraged. Thanks to my family for being there for me. iv Table of Contents: ABSTRACT: ......................................................................................................................................................................................... III ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: ........................................................................................................................................................................ IV LIST OF FIGURES: .............................................................................................................................................................................. VII LIST OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS: ............................................................................................................................................. VIII CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCING THE RESEARCH. ALTERNATIVE APPROACH ....................................................................................................................7 THEORETICAL APPROACH .....................................................................................................................................................................9 HYPOTHESES ......................................................................................................................................................................................10 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................................................14 STRUCTURE OF THESIS AND CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................................19 CHAPTER 2. NEW INSTITUTIONALISM AND IDEAS ...........................................................................................................23 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................................23 THE RISE OF NEW INSTITUTIONALISM: NORMATIVE VS. RATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM ...................................................................24 Rational institutionalism ........................................................................................................................................................25 Sociological Institutionalism ..................................................................................................................................................28 Historical Institutionalism ......................................................................................................................................................29 THE IDEATIONAL TURN ......................................................................................................................................................................34 BERMAN‘S IDEATIONAL THEORY .......................................................................................................................................................39 APPLYING BERMAN‘S IDEATIONAL THEORY TO THE CASE ..................................................................................................................43 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................................44 CHAPTER 3. IDEATIONAL MAPPING AND ELITE BEHAVIOUR: