| The Bologna Process, the process of establishing the European Higher Education Area, has surprised observers and those involved in two ways: the very initiative came unexpected and what then resulted from this initiative was even more surprising. For decades European Union (EU) member states had been rather hesitant to cooperate in the field of higher education; they vehemently opposed a transfer of competences and openly ruled out a harmonisation of laws and regulations. In the context of the Bologna Process we suddenly see intensive cooperation at the European level as well as far reaching reforms all across Europe that effectively result in a partial harmonisation of European higher education systems. This puzzle was the starting point for my research project, with which I trace the development of the Bologna Process from the very initiative in 1998 until the London ministerial meeting in May 2007 . The Bologna Process is based on voluntary and non-binding cooperation of by now 45 European states, international governmental organisations like the European Commission and the Council of Europe as well as various non-governmental organisations representing higher education institutions, students and other stakeholders. While including so many actors, the Bologna Process has not led to the creation of an international organisation (yet?) and works on the basis of consensus and mutual trust. Other than we might expect, though, this does not automatically lead to blockades or lowest common denominator decisions. On the contrary, the political process at the European level is moving very quickly - sometimes maybe even too quickly for national reform processes to keep pace. Again the question is: how is this possible? This is where my thesis comes in. As political science thesis its main concern is precisely the European political cooperation that forms the backbone of the Bologna Process . When signing the Bologna Declaration in 1999, ministers deliberately avoided the creation of an organisation and they also did not entrust an existing organisation, such as the European Union/European Commission or the Council of Europe, with the follow-up work. They wanted to keep the cooperation as loosely structured and as noncommittal as possible. They did not want to risk giving up sovereignty but rather wanted to keep full control. In the years that followed, it was precisely this loose organisation outside the EU and the non-binding nature of the Bologna Process that made it so attractive for those already involved as well as for countries seeking to join. Paradoxically, the more countries joined and the more cooperation intensified, the greater became the need for structures - which to some extent the EU had to offer. Initially, this resulted in recourse to EU structures but increasingly also led to the creation of new structures. It was a gradual process of trial and error, dominated by the inherent dilemma of how to effectively manage the process while keeping it loosely structured. The aim of this research project is to examine how the various actors in the Bologna Process have dealt with this dilemma and how it is reflected in the structures. Summing up, the central research question can be formulated as follows: How can we explain the emergence of the Bologna regime and the particular form it took? To answer this question, I will draw upon international regime theories and the work of Oran Young in particular. I will combine his analysis of regime formation as a process in three distinct stages (agenda formation, negotiation and operationalisation) with his multivariate model on institutional bargaining. In order to make the central research question more manageable, I will divide it into a number of sub-questions: (1) Why were countries willing to cooperate in the first place? (2) How did this will to cooperate lead to the formation of an international regime? (3) Which factors can explain the form of the Bologna regime? These questions will be answered using a combination of qualitative methods, namely documentary analysis, interviews and participant observation. |
