David Hanley,"Christian Democracy and the Paradoxes of Europeanization: Flexibility, Competition and Collusion," Party Politics, 8 (July, 2002), 463-481.

First Paragraph:
We begin with Robert Ladrech's definition of Europeanization, viz. 'a process by which individuals and organizational actors and institutions respond to the altered condition of their operating environment due to the changes wrought by the development of the European Union' (2000). This definition stresses the adaptive response of organizations. Ladrech suggests several axes along which one might measure party response or, if one prefers, the degree of parties' Europeanization. Programmatic change is the most visible, followed by organizational change. Ladrech also highlights possible changes to the nature of party competition or party--government relationships and, lastly, changes to relations beyond national party systems. Some of these categories are very broad, and one cannot treat them all in a single article; nor can one take a bottom-up approach focusing on all the individual Christian Democratic (CD) parties in order to assess their degree of Europeanization, for obvious reasons of space.

Figures and Tables:
Table 1: National Parties' Dates of Joining EPP
Table 2. EPP and EDU member parties compared. As at April 2000

Last Paragraph:
Europeanization reveals itself to be a matrix of powerful pressures not always pulling in the same direction. It is a complex process that proceeds at different speeds in different places; its outcomes are variable and not always controllable by EPP. It is unhelpful to see it as some inevitable process which will one day produce a tidy set of Europarties. The interplay between national and supranational actors makes such an outcome anything but predictable.