This essay aims to emphasize and clarify the positions that exist within the current globalization debate. The positions are the neo-liberal, the opponents, the pragmatists and the skeptics. The text presents and explains their ideological, moral and political positions and beliefs about the world, the nation state, the society and the individual; in light of Steven Lukes’ and Antonio Gramsci's theories regarding the interaction and the relationship between power and hegemony. The methodological starting point is the ideology-critical analysis; in which their arguments in the current globalization debate is highlighted and categorized. The neo-liberals consider globalization as a tool to legitimize the notion of the free, rational and autonomous individual – who in a free market chooses to contract, interact and relate to each other without facing any government intervention. Opponents see that globalization does not necessarily have to mean the spread of neoliberal economic doctrines – or government deregulation or privatization – but instead may represent a path towards a more just, democratic and inclusive world. Between these two diametrically opposed positions are the pragmatists; who argue that there must be a balance between political and economic freedom and government regulation and their institutional powers. Only then will globalization have the desired effects needed to be able to lift nations out of poverty, bring well being and evoke a greater temporal coherence at the global level. Finally, the skeptics’ viewpoint is that the concept of globalization is misleading and is used mainly as a diversion to hide the real interests – namely the U.S. ambitions to maintain its hegemonic position to continue to spread their neo-liberal ideology through the principles of free trade and democratization through the abolition of the welfare state. The analysis shows that the globalization debate is not primarily about what arguments are discussed at the present time, but instead deals with the political and ideological beliefs concerning how society should be designed and how the world should be comprehended and understood. The globalization debate is really about the individual and collective consciousness created by the liberal hegemonic exercise of power, and how this influence is manifested through the intellectual and moral leadership of the ruling class in the world today.

This thesis is a comparative study of how elites in Sweden and Poland approach and make sense of EU membership. It begins with the observation that the public debates in several EU member countries are becoming increasingly politicized around a dichotomy, i.e. enthusiasm and skepticism vis-à-vis European integration. Whereas a lot of research in this field covers the characteristics of the European integration process itself, fewer studies focus upon the cognitive complexity involved in national strategic policy choices. The aim of this thesis is to explore, compare and contrast the organizational and cognitive aspects of how Sweden and Poland entered the EU and thereby to contribute to an understanding of how national policymakers in Europe believe that national and supranational integration can work together. The theoretical point of departure is Stein Rokkan’s model of political integration, which emphasizes the importance of functional and territorial political cleavages in the development of modern European nation states. The model is used to identify political actors and structures that are transnationalizing forces in Europe and to determine in what ways they form a challenge to national governments in the process of adaptation to the EU. Representing different theoretical points of intersection in the Rokkanian model, these challenges are defined as Integration, Trade and Industry, Functional Regionalism and Territorial Regionalism. The empirical analysis builds on these theoretical categories and covers three different areas. First, the ways in which adaptation to the EU was organized by the governments of Sweden (1988-1994) and Poland (1998-2004) are scrutinized. Second, documents concerning the strategic policy deliberation of both organizations are analyzed in the light of Rokkanian integration categories. Third, the results of two sets of research interviews, one in each country, are analyzed. A major conclusion drawn in the study is that Rokkanian integration theory holds the key to an understanding of how national policymakers believe that European integration can be segmented and how supranational integration in the economic sphere can evolve separately from other areas of social and political integration. Although from very different countries and political experiences, elites in Sweden and Poland show remarkable cognitive similarities. Another contribution to a cross-national understanding of adaptation to the EU is the cognitive model, which is developed on the basis of empirical study. The model expands upon and goes beyond the simple dichotomy of Enthusiasts and Skeptics in the discussion about European integration. Two new categories are introduced and defined as Voluntarists and Pragmatists. The argument is that new cognitive categories are necessary to improve the description and analysis of how national policy makers in Europe set up long-term political goals and manage complex issues in the process of European integration.