Four Conversations on the Next Phase of EU Enlargement

Why Strategic Conversations?

European integration has always been shaped by ideas as much as by institutions. While treaties, negotiations and reforms define the formal architecture of enlargement, the future of Europe is equally influenced by the strategic conversations that precede political decisions. As the European Union enters a period marked by geopolitical competition, democratic uncertainty and institutional transformation, enlargement itself is becoming the subject of a new generation of questions.

The debate is no longer confined to the pace of negotiations or the fulfilment of accession benchmarks. It increasingly concerns the strategic purpose of enlargement, the resilience of democratic institutions, the consequences of prolonged uncertainty, the role of anticipatory governance and the societal foundations upon which European integration ultimately depends.

These are not questions that lend themselves to simple or definitive answers. They require dialogue between European institutions, national governments, researchers, civil society and citizens. They require the willingness to look beyond immediate political developments and consider the longer-term choices that will shape the future of both the European Union and its candidate countries.

PRESPA Strategic Conversations is conceived as a contribution to that dialogue.

Rather than offering policy prescriptions, the series seeks to stimulate informed reflection on emerging issues relevant to European integration, democratic governance and strategic resilience. Each issue brings together a small number of strategic conversations intended to encourage debate, challenge assumptions and explore new perspectives on the evolving European project.

This inaugural issue of the PRESPA Strategic Conversation focuses on four conversations that we believe will become increasingly important during the next phase of EU enlargement.

The first examines how the strategic logic of enlargement has evolved over time and asks what purpose enlargement is expected to serve in the decade ahead.

The second explores whether measuring reform progress alone is sufficient, or whether policymakers should also seek to understand the cumulative costs of prolonged non-accession.

The third argues that strategic foresight should become a shared capability for both the European Union and candidate countries, enabling each to better understand the long-term consequences of today’s decisions.

The fourth reflects on the societal dimension of enlargement and considers why investing in independent knowledge institutions is ultimately an investment in the Europeanisation and democratic resilience of acceding countries.

Taken together, these conversations are united by a simple conviction: the next phase of enlargement will require more than effective negotiations. It will require new ways of understanding transformation, measuring success, anticipating uncertainty and strengthening the institutions that enable European integration to endure.

Strategic Conversation I

The Changing Logic of Enlargement

The Question

European Union enlargement has always been more than an accession process. Throughout its history, it has served broader political and geopolitical purposes that reflected the strategic priorities of Europe at different moments in time. As the European Union and its neighbourhood undergo another period of profound transformation, an important question emerges: what strategic purpose is enlargement expected to serve today?

The Context

From the democratic transitions in Southern Europe to the reunification of the continent after the Cold War, enlargement has consistently been used to advance objectives that extended beyond membership itself. Political conditionality, legislative approximation and institutional reform have provided the operational framework for accession, but they have never been the ultimate objective. They have been instruments through which wider strategic ambitions were pursued.

What has evolved over time is not the geopolitical nature of enlargement, but the relationship between geopolitical priorities and political conditionality.

During periods of profound geopolitical change, the strategic rationale of enlargement becomes more visible. Political criteria, institutional reforms and legislative alignment remain indispensable, but they increasingly serve wider objectives related to European security, democratic stability and geopolitical influence. During periods of relative stability, attention naturally shifts back towards the mechanics of accession: negotiating chapters, assessing reforms, strengthening institutions and monitoring compliance. The geopolitical purpose does not disappear; it simply becomes less visible.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has once again shifted that balance. Enlargement is increasingly discussed not only as an accession policy, but also as a strategic instrument for strengthening Europe’s resilience, reducing geopolitical vulnerabilities and reinforcing the Union’s capacity to shape its wider neighbourhood. New concepts such as phased integration, gradual participation in European policies and differentiated forms of integration illustrate this changing strategic environment.

The Conversation

For candidate countries, this changing context requires a corresponding evolution in thinking.

Success can no longer be measured solely by progress through the accession methodology. Equally important is the capacity to strengthen democratic institutions, increase administrative resilience, enhance economic competitiveness and prepare societies for meaningful participation in an evolving European Union. These are not only accession requirements; they are strategic investments in the country’s own future.

History suggests that the geopolitical function of enlargement has never disappeared. Rather, it has adapted to Europe’s changing strategic environment. The challenge for the coming decade will therefore be not simply to manage accession, but to determine what enlargement is ultimately expected to achieve—for the European Union, for candidate countries and for the European continent as a whole.

Why This Matters?

Understanding the changing logic of enlargement is not an academic exercise. It shapes the expectations placed upon candidate countries, the priorities pursued by European institutions and the political choices made by governments on both sides of the accession process. If the strategic purpose of enlargement is evolving, then the policies, instruments and partnerships that support it must evolve as well.

Strategic Conversation II

Beyond Reform: The Cost of Non-Accession

The Question

For more than three decades, the European Union has refined one of the world’s most sophisticated systems for guiding and assessing democratic transformation. Through the Copenhagen criteria, annual reports, negotiating frameworks, accession benchmarks and, more recently, the Reform Agenda, candidate countries receive increasingly detailed guidance on the reforms expected of them and the progress they achieve.

Yet, every system of measurement shapes the questions policymakers ask. The enlargement process has become increasingly effective at measuring reform. But is it equally effective at understanding the consequences of prolonged standstill?

The Context

The current enlargement methodology rightly focuses on progress. It asks whether legislation has been adopted, institutions established, commitments fulfilled and reforms implemented. These remain indispensable dimensions of accession and should continue to form the backbone of enlargement policy.

Experience across successive enlargement rounds, however, suggests that compliance alone does not fully explain transformation. A country may successfully transpose legislation while implementation remains inconsistent. Institutions may formally exist while administrative behaviour changes only gradually. Governments may report reform activity while citizens experience little improvement in the quality of public services, economic opportunity or trust in public institutions.

This suggests that the next phase of enlargement requires a broader understanding of success.

The first dimension remains compliance. Have the agreed reforms been adopted?

The second concerns institutional transformation. Have reforms changed the way the state functions? Have they strengthened public administration, accountability, resilience and the quality of governance?

The third concerns societal transformation. Have reforms improved the everyday lives of citizens? Have they increased opportunity, strengthened legal certainty, enhanced public services and reinforced confidence in the country’s European future?

Only when these three dimensions reinforce one another can reforms fulfil their transformative purpose.

The Conversation

There is, however, another question that deserves greater strategic attention. What happens when enlargement stops moving?

The European Union has developed increasingly sophisticated instruments for measuring reform progress. It has devoted far less attention to measuring the cumulative consequences of prolonged non-accession. For countries experiencing extended political impasses or repeated delays in the accession process, the costs rarely appear immediately. They accumulate gradually.

• Institutional momentum weakens.
• Reform fatigue grows.
• Public confidence declines.
• Investment decisions are postponed.
• Young people increasingly seek opportunities elsewhere.

Governments continue reporting reform activity while citizens begin questioning whether reforms still lead towards membership.

At the same time, prolonged uncertainty creates strategic space for competing political narratives and external influence. When the credibility of the European perspective weakens, democratic resilience may weaken with it. The issue is therefore not simply whether reforms continue, but whether the political environment within which those reforms are expected to succeed remains supportive of long-term European transformation. These consequences are real, yet they are rarely measured systematically.

Understanding them is not about attributing blame to either candidate countries or the European Union. Nor is it about questioning the enlargement process itself. Rather, it is about recognising that prolonged standstill carries measurable economic, institutional, democratic and societal consequences that deserve the same analytical attention as reform progress.

Recognising this analytical gap, PRESPA Institute has begun developing the conceptual foundations for a Costs of Non-Accession (CAN) Index. Subject to appropriate institutional support, the Index would seek to complement—not replace—the existing enlargement methodology by providing a structured assessment of the cumulative costs associated with prolonged delays in accession. Its purpose would be to strengthen evidence-informed public debate, support strategic policymaking and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of transformation during the enlargement process.

Why This Matters?

The credibility of enlargement depends not only on the reforms candidate countries undertake, but also on the ability of citizens to understand why those reforms matter. Measuring progress remains essential. Understanding the cost of prolonged non-accession may become equally important. Together, they offer a more complete picture of enlargement—not only as a negotiation process, but as a long-term investment in democratic resilience, economic convergence and the future of European societies.

Strategic Conversation III

Beyond the Horizon: Strategic Foresight as a Shared Capability

The Question

The future of enlargement will not be determined solely by the reforms that candidate countries implement. It will also be shaped by the strategic decisions made by both the European Union and its future members throughout the accession process. Every decision to accelerate, delay, sequence or redefine enlargement creates consequences that extend well beyond the negotiation framework itself. How can those consequences be better understood before they become reality?

The Context

Enlargement is often presented as a structured process in which candidate countries respond to conditions established by the European Union. In practice, however, it is a shared strategic endeavour. Candidate countries decide which reforms to prioritise, how to allocate political capital, how to strengthen democratic institutions and how to prepare their societies for membership. The European Union decides when progress is recognised, how political impasses are addressed, whether new forms of gradual integration are introduced and, ultimately, how credible the enlargement perspective remains. Neither side makes these decisions in isolation. Every strategic choice influences the political environment, institutional development and societal expectations on the other side.

Understanding this dynamic relationship is becoming increasingly important as the enlargement process grows longer, more complex and more exposed to geopolitical competition.

The Conversation

Strategic foresight provides a framework for understanding how today’s decisions may shape tomorrow’s realities.

Unlike traditional forecasting, strategic foresight does not attempt to predict a single future. It explores multiple plausible futures and examines how different political choices interact with long-term structural developments to create alternative pathways.For candidate countries, this perspective can strengthen strategic planning by helping governments understand how different reform choices influence institutional resilience, democratic development, economic convergence and future accession pathways. It allows policymakers to test the long-term consequences of today’s reforms before those consequences become embedded.For the European Union, the value is equally significant.Every decision within the enlargement process influences the strategic environment in which candidate countries evolve. Decisions to accelerate negotiations, prolong uncertainty, introduce phased integration or postpone political decisions shape democratic resilience, institutional confidence, reform incentives and the broader geopolitical environment. They also influence the space available for competing political narratives, democratic backsliding and foreign malign influence.

Strategic foresight therefore enables the European Union not only to anticipate future developments but also to better understand the strategic implications of its own choices. It provides an opportunity to identify emerging vulnerabilities before they become crises, assess how different enlargement pathways influence democratic resilience and strengthen preventive rather than reactive policymaking.

This creates a shared responsibility. Candidate countries need anticipatory thinking to understand how today’s reforms influence tomorrow’s opportunities. The European Union needs the same capability to understand how today’s decisions influence tomorrow’s candidate countries. Seen from this perspective, strategic foresight becomes more than a planning instrument. It becomes an integral part of anticipatory governance within the enlargement process itself.

Why This Matters?

Enlargement has always been an exercise in shaping the future. As uncertainty increases, strategic foresight offers both the European Union and candidate countries a way to better understand the long-term implications of today’s decisions before they become irreversible. Strengthening this shared capability can improve policymaking, reinforce democratic resilience and help ensure that enlargement continues to achieve the strategic objectives for which it exists.

Strategic Conversation IV

Beyond Projects: Investing in Europeanisation of Societies

The Question

The European Union has invested heavily in supporting reforms, strengthening institutions and accompanying candidate countries throughout the accession process. These efforts have transformed legislation, improved governance and advanced democratic standards across successive rounds of enlargement. Yet one fundamental question deserves greater attention. Who prepares societies for membership? Governments negotiate accession. Institutions implement reforms. But societies ultimately determine whether those reforms endure.

The Context

Europeanisation is often understood as the alignment of legislation, institutions and public administration with the acquis unionaire. In reality, successful European integration extends well beyond governments and negotiation frameworks.

Europeanisation becomes sustainable only when European values, professional standards, democratic practices and evidence-informed policymaking become embedded throughout society. Universities educate future public servants. Independent research institutes generate policy knowledge. Professional organisations strengthen expertise. Civil society encourages participation. Media contribute to informed public debate. Together, these institutions create the societal foundations upon which European integration ultimately rests.

This distinction becomes increasingly important as accession processes become longer and more politically demanding.

• Governments change.
• Political priorities evolve.
• Negotiations slow down.
• Public confidence fluctuates.

What provides continuity during these periods are the institutions that continue producing knowledge, strengthening democratic dialogue, maintaining international partnerships and preserving the long-term orientation towards European integration.

The Conversation

The next phase of enlargement therefore requires a broader understanding of capacity-building. Supporting individual reforms remains essential. Supporting the institutions that help societies understand, sustain and defend those reforms may prove equally important.

Independent policy institutes, universities and other knowledge-based organisations contribute to enlargement in ways that extend beyond individual projects. They translate European priorities into national debates. They generate evidence that informs policymaking. They build professional expertise that remains within the country irrespective of political change. They strengthen democratic literacy, encourage critical public discussion and help identify emerging risks before they undermine institutional resilience.

These functions are becoming increasingly strategic.

Independent analytical institutions provide policy intelligence, improve understanding of developments within candidate countries, identify emerging societal trends, support anticipatory policymaking and create enduring partnerships between European and national policy communities. They strengthen the European Union’s ability not only to accompany reforms but also to understand the environments in which those reforms are expected to succeed. Seen in this light, support for independent knowledge institutions becomes an investment in democratic resilience, institutional continuity and the long-term Europeanisation of societies.

As enlargement enters a more complex geopolitical environment, societies require trusted institutions capable of explaining reforms, sustaining public dialogue, countering disinformation, understanding foreign malign influence and preserving confidence in the European project during periods of uncertainty. Such institutions help ensure that European integration remains a societal choice rather than only a governmental objective.

For the European Union, investing in this knowledge ecosystem represents more than support for civil society. It strengthens Europe’s own enlargement policy.

Independent analytical institutions provide policy intelligence, improve understanding of developments within candidate countries, identify emerging societal trends, support anticipatory policymaking and create enduring partnerships between European and national policy communities. They strengthen the European Union’s ability not only to accompany reforms but also to understand the environments in which those reforms are expected to succeed. Seen in this light, support for independent knowledge institutions becomes an investment in democratic resilience, institutional continuity and the long-term Europeanisation of societies.

Why This Matters?

Successful enlargement does not conclude when negotiations end. It succeeds when democratic values, institutional quality and European ways of thinking become permanently embedded within society. Governments can negotiate membership. Only societies can sustain it.

Strengthening the institutions that cultivate evidence, dialogue, strategic thinking and democratic resilience should therefore be understood not simply as support for civil society, but as a strategic investment in Europe’s future.