Newcomer, Normal Player or Regional Leader? Perceptions of Poland in the EU

Open access


This study analyses the status of the new EU member states and, in particular, Poland as it is perceived by the representatives of the older EU members. On a theoretical level, it argues that the transformation of the newcomers into “normal players” or even “regional leaders” is dependent on five specific conditions that each of these countries must fulfil. These range from (1) simple compliance with the EU’s basic norms and (2) a sufficient level of orientation in EU decision-making to (3) establishment of the country’s unique policy expertise, (4) the ability to create winning coalitions and finally and above all (5) a willingness to defend the interests of the Union as a whole. On an empirical level, we draw on an extensive set of interviews with diplomats belonging to the permanent representation of the old member states in Brussels. Based on these data, we conclude that (1) Poland has already established itself as a normal EU player fully comparable with the older member states. In terms of the country’s leadership status, (2) Poland has also moved to the position of frontrunner among the new member states. However, the country still fails in at least one criterion: (regional) leadership. This precludes it from becoming a fully respected and leading state in the EU.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aggestam L. (2012): European Foreign Policy and the Quest for a Global Role: Britain France and Germany London Routledge.

  • Barbé E. – Costa O. – Herranz A. – Johansson-Nogués E. – Natorski M. – Sabiote M.A. (2009): Drawing the Neighbours What? Explaining Emerging Patterns of Policy Convergence between the EU and its Neighbours. Cooperation and Conflict 44 (4): 378–399.

  • Bielasiak J. (2002): Determinants of Public Opinion Differences on EU Accession in Poland. Europe-Asia Studies 54 (8): 1241–1266.

  • Blazyca G. – Kolkiewicz M. (1999): Poland and the EU: Internal Disputes Domestic Politics and Accession. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 15 (4): 131–143.

  • Boeri T. – Brücker H. (2000): The Impact of Eastern Enlargement on Employment and Labour Markets in the EU Member States Berlin and Milano European Integration Consortium.

  • Boulding K. E. (1959): National Images and International Systems. Journal of Conflict Resolution 3 (2): 120–131.

  • Böhmelt T. – Freyburg T. (2013): The Temporal Dimension of the Credibility of EU Conditionality and Candidate States’ Compliance with the Acquis Communautaire 1998 – 2009. European Union Politics 14 (2): 250–272.

  • Browing C.S. – Christou G. (2010): The Constitutive Power of Outsiders: The European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Dimension. Political Geography 29 (2): 109–118.

  • Bruter M. (2004): On What Citizens Mean by Feeling ‘European’: Perceptions of News Symbols and Borderlessness. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 30 (1): 21–39.

  • Caddy J. (1997): Harmonization and Asymmetry: Environmental Policy Co-ordination between the European Union and Central Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (3): 318–336.

  • Cameron D. (2003): The Challenges of Accession. East European Politics and Societies 17 (1): 24–41.

  • Catalinac A.L. (2007): Identity Theory and Foreign Policy: Explaining Japan’s Responses to the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 U.S. War in Iraq. Politics & Policy 35 (1): 58–100.

  • Chafetz G. (1997): The Struggle for a National Identity in Post-Soviet Russia. International Studies Quarterly 111 (4): 661–688.

  • Copeland P. (2012): EU Enlargement the Clash of Capitalisms and the European Social Model. Comparative European Politics 10 (4): 476–504.

  • Copeland P. (2013): Central and Eastern Europe: Negotiating Influence in an Enlarged European Union. Europe-Asia Studies 66 (3): 467–487.

  • Copsey N. – Haughton T. (2009): The Choices for Europe: National Preferences in New and Old Member States. Journal of Common Market Studies 47 (2): 263–286.

  • Copsey N. – Pomorska K. (2010): Poland’s Power and Influence in the European Union. Comparative European Politics 8 (1): 304–326.

  • Copsey N. and Pomorska K. (2013): The Influence of Newer Member States in the European Union: The Case of Poland and the Eastern Partnership. Europe Asia Studies 66 (3) 421–443.

  • Dimitrova A. L. (2002): Enlargement Institution-Building and the EU’s Administrative Capacity Requirement. West European Politics 25 (4): 171–190.

  • Dimitrova A.L. (2010): The New Member States of the EU in the Aftermath of Enlargement: Do New European Rules Remain Empty Shells? Journal of European Public Policy 17 (1): 137–148.

  • Epstein R. A. and Jacoby W. (2014): Eastern Enlargement Ten Years On: Transcending the East–West Divide? Journal of Common Market Studies 52 (1): 1–16.

  • Falkner G. – Treib O. (2008): Three Worlds of Compliance or Four? The EU-15 Compared to New Member States. Journal of Common Market Studies 46 (2): 293–313.

  • Ferry M. (2003): The EU and Recent Regional Reform in Poland. Europe-Asia Studies 55 (7) 1097–1116.

  • Genna G.M. (2009): Positive Country Images Trust and Public Support for European Integration. Comparative European Politics 7 (2): 213–232.

  • Grabbe H. (2002): Europeanisation Goes East: Power and Uncertainty in the EU Accession Process in Featherstone K. – Radaelli C. eds. The Politics of Europeanisation Oxford Oxford University Press.

  • Gupta J. – van der Grijp N. (2000) Perceptions of the EU’s Role. Is the EU a Leader? in Gupta J. & Grubb M.J. eds. Climate Change and European Leadership: A Suitable Role for Europe? Dordrecht Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Goetz K.H. (2005) The New Member States and the EU: Responding to Europe in Bulmer S. – Lequesne C. eds. The Member States of the European Union Oxford Oxford University Press.

  • Harnisch S. – Frank C. – Maull H.W. (2011): Role Theory in International Relations. Approaches and Analyses London Routledge.

  • Haughton T. (2009): For Business for Pleasure or for Necessity: The Czech Republic’s Choices for Europe. Europe-Asia Studies 61 (8): 1371–1392.

  • Haughton T. (2010) Vulnerabilities Accession Hangovers and the Presidency Role: Explaining New EU Member States’ Choices for Europe. Mezinárodní vztahy 45 (4): 11–28.

  • Heller R. (2009): Notions of Insecurity and Security Policy within the EU: A Historical Perspective Economics of Security Working Paper 4 Berlin DIW.

  • Holsti K.J. (1970): National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly 14 (3): 233–309.

  • Hughes G. – Bucknall J. (2000): Poland. Complying with EU Environmental Legislation Washington D.C. The World Bank.

  • Hughes J. – Sasse G. – Gordon C. (2004): Conditionality and Compliance in the EU’s Eastward Enlargement: Regional Policy and the Reform of Sub-national Government. Journal of Common Market Studies 42 (3): 523–551.

  • Ilonszki G. (2009): Perceptions of the European Union in New Member States. A Comparative Perspective London Routledge.

  • Ilonszki G (2009a): National Discontent and EU Support in Central and Eastern Europe in Ilonszki G. ed. Perceptions of the European Union in New Member States. A Comparative Perspective. London Routledge.

  • Jervis R. (1976): Perception and Misperception in International Politics Princeton Princeton University Press.

  • Jones E. (2009): Output Legitimacy and the Global Financial Crisis: Perceptions Matter. Journal of Common Market Studies 47 (5): 1085–1105.

  • Karolewski I. P. – Sus M. (2011): The Polish EU Council Presidency: Poland as a Mediator Warsaw FES.

  • Keukeleire S. – Bruyninckx H. (2011): The European Union the BRICs and the Emerging New World Order in Hill C. – Smith M. eds. International Relations and the European Union Oxford Oxford University Press.

  • Kratochvíl P. (ed) (2013): The EU as a Political Actor: The Analysis of Four Dimensions of the EU’s Actorness Baden-Baden: Nomos.

  • Lackowska-Madurowicz M. and Swianiewicz P. (2013): Structures Procedures and Social Capital:The Implementation of EU Cohesion Policies by Subnational Governments in Poland. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (4): 1396–1418.

  • Lasas A. (2008): Restituting Victims: EU and NATO Enlargement through the Lenses of Collective Guilt. Journal of European Public Policy 15(1): 98–116.

  • Lippert B. – Umbach G. (2005): The Pressure of Europeanisation: From Post-Communist State Administrations to Normal Players in the EU System Baden Baden Nomos.

  • Lucarelli S. (2014): Seen from the Outside: The State of the Art on the External Image of the EU. Journal of European Integration 36 (1): 1–16.

  • Maliszewska M. (2004): EU Enlargement: Benefits of the Single Market Expansion for Current and New Member States CASE Network Studies and Analyses Warsaw CASE.

  • Mattlin M. (2012): Dead on Arrival: Normative EU Policy towards China. Asia Europe Journal 10 (2–3): 181–198.

  • McLean C. – Gray T. (2009): Liberal Intergovernmentalism Historical Institutionalism and British and German Perceptions of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy 33 (3): 458–465.

  • Mišík M. (2013): How can Perception Help us to Understand the Dynamic between EU Member States? The State of the Art. Asia Europe Journal 11 (4): 445–463.

  • Mišík M. (2014): Our New Allies? Perception of the New Member States of the EU by the Old Members. Czech Journal of Political Science 21 (3): 345–351.

  • Mišík M. (2015): The Influence of Perception on the Preferences of the New Member States of the European Union: The Case of Energy Policy. Comparative European Politics 13 (2): 198–221.

  • Moravcsik A. – Vachudová M.A. (2003): National Interests State Power and EU Enlargement. East European Politics and Societies 17 (1): 42–57.

  • Nguyen E.S. (2008): Drivers and Brakemen: State Decisions on the Road to European Integration. European Union Politics 9 (2): 269–293.

  • Pridham G. (2008): The EU’s Political Conditionality and Post-Accession Tendencies: Comparisons from Slovakia and Latvia. Journal of Common Market Studies 46 (2): 365–387.

  • Pointvogl A. (2009): Perceptions Realities Concession – What is Driving the Integration of European Energy Policies? Energy Policy 37 (12): 5704–5716.

  • Pomorska K. and Vanhoonacker S. (2012): Poland in the Driving Seat: A Mature Presidency in Turbulent Times. Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (S2): 76–84.

  • Preston C. – Michonski A. (1999): Negotiating Regulatory Alignment in Central Europe? The Case of the Poland EU European Conformity Assessment Agreement Sussex Sussex European Institute.

  • Roth M. (2011): Poland as a Policy Entrepreneur in European External Energy Policy: Towards Greater Energy Solidarity vis-à-vis Russia? Geopolitics 16 (3) 600–625.

  • Schimmelfennig F. (2001): The Community Trap: Liberal Norms Rhetorical Action and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union. International Organization 55 (1): 47–80.

  • Sedelmeier U. (2006): The EU’s Role as a Promoter of Human Rights and Democracy in Elgström O. – Smith M. eds. The European Union’s Roles in International Politics. Concepts and Analysis London Routledge.

  • Sedelmeier U. (2006a): Europeanisation in New Member and Candidate States. Living Reviews in European Governance 1 (3): 4–34.

  • Schmimmelfennig F. – Sedelmeier U. (2004): Governance by Conditionality: EU Rule Transfer to the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 11 (4): 661–679.

  • Silverstein B. (1989): Enemy Images. The Psychology of U.S. Attitudes and Cognitions Regarding the Soviet Union. American Psychology 44 (6): 903–913.

  • Silverstein B. – Flamenbaum C. (1989): Biases in the Perception and Cognition of the Action of Enemies. Journal of Sociological Issues 45 (2): 51–72.

  • Taggart P. – Szczerbiak A. (2002): The Party Politics of Euroscepticism in EU Member and Candidate States Sussex Sussex European Institute.

  • Tosun J. (2011): When the Grace Period is Over: Assessing the New Member States’ Compliance with EU Requirements for Oil Stockholding. Energy Policy 39 (11): 7156–7164.

  • Vandecasteele B. Bossuyt F. and Orbie J. (2013): Unpacking the influence of the Council Presidency on European Union external policies: The Polish Council Presidency and the Eastern Partnership. European Integration online Papers 17 (1): article 5.

  • Vaughan-Whitehead D. (2003): EU Enlargement versus Social Europe? The Uncertain Future of the European Social Model Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  • Vilpišauskas R. (2013): Lithuania’s EU Council Presidency: Negotiating Finances Dealing with Geopolitics. Journal of Common Market Studies 52 (S1): 99–108.

  • Zaghini A. (2005): Evolution of Trade Patterns in the New EU Member States. Economics of Transition 13 (4): 629–658.

  • Zielonka J. (2004): Challenges of EU Enlargement. Journal of Democracy 15 (1): 22–35.

  • Wallace H. (2005): Exercising Power and Influence in the European Union: The Roles of Member States in Bulmer S. – Lequesne C. eds. The Member States of the European Union Oxford Oxford University Press.

  • White J. (2010): Europe in the Political Imagination. Journal of Common Market Studies 48 (4): 1015–1038.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.48

Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.18
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.195

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 326 185 4
PDF Downloads 129 86 0