IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v31y2019i4p642-659.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why differentiated integration is such a common practice in Europe: A rational explanation

Author

Listed:
  • Katharina Holzinger
  • Jale Tosun

Abstract

With Brexit imminent, the debate on the need for differentiated integration (DI) by means of opting-out has gained new momentum. At the same time, non-member states decide to adopt European Union (EU) rules as exemplified by the European Neighbourhood Policy. In light of these opposing observations, we examine the EU’s disposition to supply DI. We outline the strategic interactions of the EU member states or non-members in the context of two forms of DI: opting-out and inducing-in. In the case of opting-out, EU member states can refrain from adopting EU rules; inducing-in refers to providing non-member states with incentives to adopt EU rules. We show that the information asymmetries inherent to the strategic interactions result in a situation in which the EU is likely to supply opportunities to opt-out for member states to a much greater extent than necessary. Furthermore, the EU is likely to offer more compensation to non-member states in exchange for adopting EU rules than it would actually need to.

Suggested Citation

  • Katharina Holzinger & Jale Tosun, 2019. "Why differentiated integration is such a common practice in Europe: A rational explanation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(4), pages 642-659, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:31:y:2019:i:4:p:642-659
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629819875522
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629819875522
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629819875522?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    2. Sandholtz, Wayne, 1993. "Choosing union: monetary politics and Maastricht," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 1-39, January.
    3. Tosun, Jale, 2011. "When the grace period is over: Assessing the new Member States' compliance with EU requirements for oil stockholding," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7156-7164.
    4. Robert Evans & Jonathan P. Thomas, 1997. "Reputation and Experimentation in Repeated Games with Two Long-Run Players," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1153-1174, September.
    5. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1997. "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 513-553, October.
    6. Frey, Bruno S. & Eichenberger, Reiner, 1996. "FOCJ: Competitive governments for Europe," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 315-327, September.
    7. Alexander C‐G. Stubb, 1996. "A Categorization of Differentiated Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(2), pages 283-295, June.
    8. Peter Lorentzen & M Taylor Fravel & Jack Paine, 2017. "Qualitative investigation of theoretical models: the value of process tracing," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(3), pages 467-491, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Malang & Katharina Holzinger, 2020. "The political economy of differentiated integration: The case of common agricultural policy," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 741-766, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shota Fujishima, 2015. "The emergence of cooperation through leadership," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(1), pages 17-36, February.
    2. Thomas Malang & Katharina Holzinger, 2020. "The political economy of differentiated integration: The case of common agricultural policy," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 741-766, July.
    3. Cemal Karakas, 2013. "EU–Turkey: Integration without Full Membership or Membership without Full Integration? A Conceptual Framework for Accession Alternatives," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(6), pages 1057-1073, November.
    4. Andrew Moravcsik, 2008. "The European Constitutional Settlement," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 158-183, January.
    5. Nathalie Greenan & Marc-Arthur Diaye & Patricia Crifo, 2004. "Pourquoi les entreprises évaluent-elles individuellement leurs salariés ?," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 164(3), pages 27-55.
    6. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    7. van Damme, Eric & Hurkens, Sjaak, 1999. "Endogenous Stackelberg Leadership," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 105-129, July.
    8. Dennis L. Gärtner, 2022. "Corporate Leniency in a Dynamic World: The Preemptive Push of an Uncertain Future," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 119-146, March.
    9. Antonio Cabrales & Rosemarie Nagel & Roc Armenter, 2007. "Equilibrium selection through incomplete information in coordination games: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(3), pages 221-234, September.
    10. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2003. "Elicited bid functions in (a)symmetric first-price auctions," Working Papers 85, Barcelona School of Economics.
    11. Chantal Marlats, 2021. "Reputation effects in stochastic games with two long-lived players," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(1), pages 1-31, February.
    12. Gabriele Camera & Cary Deck & David Porter, 2020. "Do economic inequalities affect long-run cooperation and prosperity?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 53-83, March.
    13. Simai He & Jay Sethuraman & Xuan Wang & Jiawei Zhang, 2017. "A NonCooperative Approach to Cost Allocation in Joint Replenishment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(6), pages 1562-1573, December.
    14. Maarten C.W. Janssen, 1997. "Focal Points," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 97-091/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Michael Kosfeld, 2002. "Stochastic strategy adjustment in coordination games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(2), pages 321-339.
    16. Mihály Borsi & Norbert Metiu, 2015. "The evolution of economic convergence in the European Union," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 657-681, March.
    17. Sanjeev Goyal & Fernando Vega-Redondo, 2000. "Learning, Network Formation and Coordination," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0113, Econometric Society.
    18. Andrea Isoni & Robert Sugden & Jiwei Zheng, 2018. "The Pizza Night Game: Efficiency, Conflict and Inequality in Tacit Bargaining Games with Focal Points," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 18-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    19. Ennis, Huberto M. & Keister, Todd, 2005. "Government policy and the probability of coordination failures," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 939-973, May.
    20. Smith, Lisa C. & Chavas, Jean-Paul, 1999. "Supply response of West African agricultural households," FCND discussion papers 69, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:31:y:2019:i:4:p:642-659. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.