Germany and Central Europe: Hegemony re-examined

Abstract

This paper re-examines post-cold war predictions of German hegemony in Central Europe. Focusing on the four ‘Visegrad’ states, it examines each of the three pillars of prospective German hegemony. It concludes that only in the economic pillar can Germany be perceived as dominant. German dominance in the political realm is limited by historical factors and by the supranational structures of the EU. German cultural influence or ‘soft power’ is undermined by domestic economic and political problems, as well as the availability of alternative models. Thus, while Germany is clearly a powerful country, it is difficult to argue that it exercises even a limited ‘soft hegemony’ in Central Europe today.

Notes

1. The hegemony thesis described here is a composite, gleaned from a number of different sources. Much of the discussion of German hegemony took place in the popular media, while academic experts tended to be more sceptical. Among the scholarly publications which address the question of German hegemony or the ‘new German question’ after 1990 are Paul B. Stares (ed.), The New Germany and the New Europe (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1992); Gary L. Geipel (ed.), Germany in a New Era (Indianapolis: Hudson Institute, 1993); Timothy Garton Ash, In Europe's Name: Germany and the Divided Continent (New York: Random House, 1993); Michael Huelshoff, Andrei S. Markovits and Simon Reich (eds.), From Bundesrepublik to Deutschland: Social History, Popular Culture, and Politics in Germany (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1993); Jeffrey J. Anderson and John B. Goodman, ‘Mars or Minerva? A United Germany in Post-Cold War Europe’, in Robert O. Keohane, Joseph S. Nye and Stanley Hoffman, After the Cold War: International Institutions and State Strategies in Europe, 1989–1991 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp.23–62; Carl F. Lankowski (ed.), Germany and the European Community: Beyond Hegemony and Containment? (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993); Andrei S. Markovits and Simon Reich, The German Predicament: Memory and Power in the New Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997); and Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), Tamed Power: Germany in Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997).

2. William Wallace, ‘Germany at the Centre of Europe’, in Eva Kolinsky (ed.), The Federal Republic of Germany: The End of an Era (New York: Berg, 1991), p.170.

3. Andrei S. Markovits and Simon Reich, ‘Should Europe Fear the Germans?’, in Huelshoff et al. (eds.), From Bundesrepublik to Deutschland, pp.271–89; and Markovits and Reich, The German Predicament.

4. James Sperling, ‘Less than Meets the Eye: A Reconsideration of German Hegemony in Post Cold War Europe’, in Mary Hampton and Christian Søe (eds.), Between Bonn and Berlin: German Politics Adrift? (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999), pp.255–73.

5. Simon Bulmer and William Paterson, ‘Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?’ International Affairs 72/1 (1996), pp.9–32.

6. Anderson and Goodman, ‘Mars or Minerva?’; Max Otte, A Rising Middle Power? German Foreign Policy in Transition, 1989–1999 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000).

7. Peter J. Katzenstein, ‘United Germany in an Integrating Europe’, in Katzenstein (ed.), Tamed Power, pp.1–48; Thomas Banchoff, The German Problem Transformed: Institutions, Politics, and Foreign Policy, 1945–1995 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999); Christoph Bluth, Germany and the Future of European Security (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000).

8. The concept of ‘soft power’ was developed and popularized, in reference to America's role in world affairs, by Joseph Nye, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (New York: Basic Books, 1990). The defining feature of ‘soft power’ is that it works through co-optation rather than coercion. For an analysis of Germany's soft power in the EU, see Simon J. Bulmer, ‘Shaping the Rules: The Constitutive Politics of the European Union and German Power’, in Katzenstein (ed.), Tamed Power, pp.49–79; and Jeffrey J. Anderson, ‘Hard Interests, Soft Power, and Germany's Changing Role in Europe’, in Katzenstein (ed.), Tamed Power, pp.80–107.

9. Vladimír Handl, ‘Německý mulilateralismus a vztahy k státum visegrádské skupiny’, (German Multilateralism and Relations among the Visegrad Group Countries), Mezinárodní vztahy 38/1 (2003), pp.5–27.

10. In the period 1990–95, for instance, Germany contributed nearly 45 per cent of all EU bilateral assistance to the CEECs, and nearly one-quarter of the G24 total, which includes assistance from the EU and other OECD countries. Alan Mayhew, Recreating Europe: The European Union's Policy towards Central and Eastern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p.157.

11. Polish Central Statistical Office (GUS), ‘Foreign Trade Turnover by Countries’, January 2005, http://www.stat.gov.pl/english/dane_spol-gosp/ceny_handel_uslugi/obroty_handl_zagr/2005/i_05.htm.

12. European Commission, ‘Commission Opinion on Poland's Application for Admission of the European Union’, Bulletin of the European Union: Supplement 7/97 (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997), p.93.

13. Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH), Statistical Report 1/2005 (Budapest: 2005), p.31.

14. International Monetary Fund (IMF), ‘Hungary: Selected Issues and Statistical Appendix’, IMF Staff Country Report No. 00/59 (April 2000), p.80.

15. Czech Statistical Office (CSU), ‘External Trade of the Czech Republic January–February 2005’, http://www.czso.cz/eng/edicniplan.nsf/p/6001-05.

16. IMF, ‘Czech Republic: Statistical Appendix’, IMF Staff Country Report No.00/119, (September 2000), p.34.

17. Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (SUSR), http://www.statistics.sk/webdata/English/index2_a.htm.

18. IMF, ‘Slovak Republic: Statistical Appendix’, IMF Country Report No. 03/235 (August 2003), pp.28–9.

19. Polish Agency for Foreign Investment (PAIZ), ‘Country Breakdown of FDI Stock in Poland – Capital Registration, as of 31 December 2005’, http://paiz.gov.pl/index/?id = ed3d2c21991e3bef5e069713af9fa6ca.

20. Hungarian National Bank (MNB), ‘Foreign Direct Investment in Hungary, 1995–2003, (Budapest, 31 March 2005), p.42. The figure for The Netherlands is somewhat deceptive, however, since much of this investment originates in the US.

21. Czech National Bank (CNB), ‘Foreign Direct Investment as of 31 December 2003’ (2005), http://www.cnb.cz/en/pzi_t_zeme_2003_eur.php.

22. National Bank of Slovakia (NBS), ‘Monetary Survey’ (February 2005), p.76.

23. Irene Lovino, ‘Foreign Direct Investment in the Candidate Countries: Sector and Country Composition’, EUROSTAT: Statistics in Focus, Economy and Finance, Theme 2 – 55/2002 (2002), p.5.

24. EU membership reduces the political risk of investing in the Central and Eastern European countries. It also means the end to special investment incentives given to American and other non-EU investors by Poland and other Central and Eastern European countries.

25. Handl, ‘Německý mulilateralismus’, pp.5–27.

26. For details on these treaties and bilateral relations with each of the CEE countries, see the website of the German Foreign Ministry, under the heading of ‘Country and Travel Information’, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/index_html.

27. For an account of the enlargement process and accession negotiations up through early 2000, see Michael J. Baun, A Wider Europe: The Process and Politics of European Union Enlargement (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).

28. Michael Baun, ‘Germany and EU Enlargement’, Paper presented at the 5th Biennial Conference of the European Community Studies Association, Seattle, WA, 29 May–1 June 1997; and Michael Baun, ‘Germany and the New Multilateral Institutional Order in Central and Eastern Europe: The EU and NATO’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Norfolk, VA, 5–8 November 1997.

29. On Germany's role in both EU and NATO enlargement, see Baun, ‘Germany and EU Enlargement’, and Baun, ‘Germany and the New Multilateral Institutional Order in Central and Eastern Europe’.

30. For details of the final accession agreement, see John Van Oudenaren, The Changing Face of Europe: EU Enlargement and Implications for Transatlantic Relations, AICGS Policy Report No. 6 (Washington, DC: AICGS, 2003), pp.24–45.

31. European divisions on Iraq and CEEC motives and positions are analysed in Michael Baun, ‘The New Member States as Policy Actors: The Case of CFSP’, Paper presented at the ‘Workshop on EU Enlargement: An Eastern Perspective’, EU Center of the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 7 April 2003.

32. Fraser Cameron and Antoinette Primatarova, ‘Enlargement, CFSP and the Convention: The Role of the Accession States’, EPIN Working Paper No. 5 (June 2003).

33. Paul Magnette and Kalypso Nicolaïdes, ‘Large and Small Member States in the European Union: Reinventing the Balance’, Notre Europe, Research and European Issues No. 25, June 2003; David Král, Irena Brinar and Josefin Almer, ‘The Position of Small Countries Towards Institutional Reform: From Tyranny of the Small to Directoire of the Big?’ EPIN Working Paper No. 6 (June 2003).

34. Ann L. Phillips, Power and Influence After the Cold War: Germany in East-Central Europe (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).

35. Andrew Moravcsik and Milada Anna Vachudova, ‘Bargaining among Unequals: Enlargement and the Future of European Integration’, EUSA Review 15/4 (Fall 2002), pp.1–4; Michael Baun, ‘Intergovernmental Politics’, in Neill Nugent (ed.), European Union Enlargement (London: Palgrave, 2004), pp.132–45.

36. Handl, ‘Německý mulilateralismus’, pp.5–27.

37. Markovits and Reich, ‘Should Europe Fear the Germans?’

38. Wade Jacoby, ‘Remaking the East by Looking to the West: Emulation and Reform in Central and Eastern Europe’, Paper presented at the ‘Workshop on EU Enlargement: An Eastern Perspective’, EU Center of the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 7 April 2003.

39. Wade Jacoby and Pavel Cernoch, ‘The EU's Pivotal Role in the Creation of Czech Regional Policy’, in Ronald H. Linden (ed.), Norms and Nannies: The Impact of International Organizations on the Central and Eastern European States (Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002); Dan Marek and Michael Baun, ‘The EU as a Regional Actor: The Case of the Czech Republic’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40/5 (December 2002), pp.895–919; Michael Baun, ‘EU Regional Policy in the Candidate States: Poland and the Czech Republic’, Journal of European Integration 24/3 (September 2002), pp.261–80; Martin Brusis, ‘Institution Building for Regional Development: A Comparison of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia’, in J. Beyer, J. Wielgohs and H. Wiesenthal (eds.), Successful Transitions: Political Factors of Socio-Economic Progress in Postsocialist Countries (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2001), pp.223–42; and Martin Brusis, ‘Between EU Eligibility Requirements, Competitive Politics and National Traditions: Re-creating Regions in the Accession Countries of Central and Eastern Europe’, Paper presented at the Bi-Annual Conference of the European Union Studies Association, Madison, WI, 30 May–2 June 2001.

40. Alec Stone Sweet, Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

41. On competing models and the restructuring of economies and welfare states in Central and Eastern Europe, see Laszlo Bruszt, ‘Making Markets and Eastern Enlargement: Diverging Convergence?’ in Peter Mair and Jan Zielonka (eds.), The Enlarged European Union: Diversity and Adaptation (London: Frank Cass, 2002), pp.121–40; Hans-Jürgen Wagener, ‘The Welfare State in Transition Economies and Accession to the EU’, in Mair and Zielonka (eds.), The Enlarged European Union, pp.152–174; and Mátyás János Kovács, ‘Approaching the EU and Reaching the US? Rival Narratives on Transforming Welfare Regimes in East-Central Europe’, in Mair and Zielonka (eds.), The Enlarged European Union, pp.175–204.

42. On Germany's ‘model student’ status in the EU see Simon Bulmer and William Paterson, The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Community (London: Allen & Unwin, 1987). On German multilateralism and internationalization also see Katzenstein (ed.), Tamed Power; and Markovits and Reich, The German Predicament.

43. Katzenstein, ‘United Germany’.

44. Handl, ‘Německý mulilateralismus’, pp.5–27.

45. Adrian Hyde-Price, Germany and the European Order: Enlarging NATO and the EU (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000); Simon Bulmer, Charlie Jeffery and William Paterson, German European Diplomacy: Shaping the Regional Milieu (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000).