IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsc/rsceui/2022-63.html

Differentiated integration in the European Union: Its role for cooperating with nonmembers and for the EU’s future as perceived by academic experts

Author

Listed:
  • Sandra Kröger
  • Maria Dede

Abstract

There is now an abundant conceptual and empirical literature on differentiated integration in the EU. However, what are academic experts’ more political and normative views on the matter? This paper enlarges our knowledge about how academic experts perceive of DI in general, as well as about questions relating to external DI, enlargement, and the EU’s future. From the analysis emerge four main findings. First, there continues to be very strong support for the idea of a flexible Europe, though there remain strong differences in support between different types of DI. Second, a large majority of our experts considered that DI should not be allowed in all EU policies areas, not least the Rule of Law. Third, the majority of respondents support external DI, however not unconditionally. Fourth, and finally, despite the overall support for DI in many areas of policy, experts in their majority thought that uniform integration would better allow the EU to realise its goals, and so DI appears as a second-best which is supported when uniform integration does not seem politically feasible.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandra Kröger & Maria Dede, 2022. "Differentiated integration in the European Union: Its role for cooperating with nonmembers and for the EU’s future as perceived by academic experts," RSCAS Working Papers 2022/63, European University Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2022/63
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/74970/RSC_WP_2022_63.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1814/74970
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Leruth & Stefan Gänzle & Jarle Trondal, 2019. "Exploring Differentiated Disintegration in a Post‐Brexit European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(5), pages 1013-1030, September.
    2. Sandra Kröger & Thomas Loughran, 2022. "The Risks and Benefits of Differentiated Integration in the European Union as Perceived by Academic Experts," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 702-720, May.
    3. Frank Schimmelfennig & Thomas Winzen, 2014. "Instrumental and Constitutional Differentiation in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 354-370, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ioannis Vergioglou & Sven Hegewald, 2023. "From causes to consequences: Investigating the effects of differentiated integration on citizens’ EU support," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 206-224, March.
    2. Frank Schimmelfennig & Dirk Leuffen & Catherine E De Vries, 2023. "Differentiated integration in the European Union: Institutional effects, public opinion, and alternative flexibility arrangements," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 3-20, March.
    3. Philipp Genschel & Markus Jachtenfuchs & Marta Migliorati, 2023. "Differentiated integration as symbolic politics? Constitutional differentiation and policy reintegration in core state powers," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 81-101, March.
    4. Barbora Hronešová, 2017. "European integration differentiation - theory and concept [Diferenciace evropské integrace - teorie a koncepty]," Současná Evropa, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2017(1), pages 58-76.
    5. Thomas Winzen & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2016. "Explaining differentiation in European Union treaties," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(4), pages 616-637, December.
    6. Paolo Chiocchetti, 2023. "A Quantitative Analysis of Legal Integration and Differentiation in the European Union, 1958–2020," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1337-1359, September.
    7. Cunico, Giovanni & Aivazidou, Eirini & Mollona, Edoardo, 2021. "Building a dynamic theory of citizens’ awareness of European Cohesion Policy interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(2), pages 758-773.
    8. Stefan Telle & Lisanne de Blok & Catherine E. de Vries & Lorenzo Cicchi, 2022. "Elite‐Mass Linkages in the Preference Formation on Differentiated Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(6), pages 1663-1683, November.
    9. Ronja Sczepanski & Tanja A Börzel, 2023. "Two sides of the same coin? The effect of differentiation on noncompliance with European Union law," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 63-80, March.
    10. Tanja A. Börzel, 2016. "From EU Governance of Crisis to Crisis of EU Governance: Regulatory Failure, Redistributive Conflict and Eurosceptic Publics," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54, pages 8-31, September.
    11. Per Lægreid & Lise H. Rykkja, 2020. "Nordic Administrative Collaboration: Scope, Predictors and Effects on Policy Design and Administrative Reform Measures," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 352-363.
    12. Max Heermann & Dirk Leuffen, 2020. "No Representation without Integration! Why Differentiated Integration Challenges the Composition of the European Parliament," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 1016-1033, July.
    13. Frank Schimmelfennig, 2015. "What's the News in ‘New Intergovernmentalism'? A Critique of Bickerton, Hodson and Puetter," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 723-730, July.
    14. Jørgen Bølstad, 2015. "Dynamics of European integration: Public opinion in the core and periphery," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 23-44, March.
    15. Andreas Eisl & Eulalia Rubio, 2020. "Brexit and External Differentiation in Single Market Access," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-02978122, HAL.
    16. repec:prg:jnlwep:v:2017:y:2017:i:1:id:144:p:58-76 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Robert Zbiral & Sebastiaan Princen & Hubert Smekal, 2023. "Differentiation through flexibility in implementation: Strategic and substantive uses of discretion in EU directives," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 102-120, March.
    18. Enrico Ciavolino & Artur Roland Kozłowski & Cosima Valentino & Gianfranco Gatti & Grzegorz Krzykowski & Grahame Fallon, 2025. "Analyzing the conceptual model for support for the EU membership in Poland using PLS-SEM," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 59(6), pages 5603-5621, December.
    19. Martin Moland, 2024. "Past Political Asymmetry and Present Public Opinion: How Has the Asymmetrical Federation of the EU Shaped Popular Opinion of Its Optimal Shape?," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 54(2), pages 361-385.
    20. Rikard Bengtsson, 2020. "Nordic Security and Defence Cooperation: Differentiated Integration in Uncertain Times," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 100-109.
    21. Per Lægreid & Lise H. Rykkja, 2020. "Nordic Administrative Collaboration: Scope, Predictors and Effects on Policy Design and Administrative Reform Measures," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 21-32.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rsc:rsceui:2022/63. 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: RSCAS web unit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rsiueit.html .

    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.