ABSTRACT
The analysis revealed that it is very difficult to clearly distinguish whether it was norms (ideational factors) or interests (material factors) that mattered and to what extent they mattered. Compared to previous enlargement rounds, one factor alone was not sufficient to explain both countries’ institutional advancement. For instance, while the first southern and recent eastern enlargement rounds are considered examples of sociological institutionalism (cf. Schimmelfennig 1998a; Croft et al. 1999: 58), the latest enlargement round of EFTA plausibly corroborated the rationalist institutionalist analysis of absolute gains. With neither of the independent variables being a sufficient condition of enlargement alone, it was the complex interplay of both influences – norms and interests – that explained the EU’s decision to expand to include Turkey and Cyprus. Nonetheless, the socialconstructivist hypothesis came out as the strongest variable: neither Cyprus nor Turkey would have been able to advance in ‘institutional status’ without following the EU’s norms and values.
