Design principles for efficient and legitimate differentiated integration schemes

Abstract

Despite a considerable scholarly interest in differentiated integration (DI) as a design option, the literature on the topic is fragmented and unsystematic. The present paper fills this gap by developing a novel analytical framework to inform the assessment and design of international integration schemes based on seven evaluative criteria (feasibility, overall benefits, substantive fairness, procedural fairness, acceptance, sustainability, and overall desirability) and related design principles (maximization or satisfaction) and empirical indicators. It then applies it to the available theoretical and empirical literature on various models of international integration to identify the comparative strengths and weaknesses of internal DI and external DI. In light of the predominantly normative and highly controversial nature of the assessment process, the analysis suggests that the best way to design efficient and legitimate DI schemes is to ensure their responsiveness to democratic preferences and decision-making procedures at the national or EU level.

A Quantitative Analysis of Legal Integration and Differentiation in the European Union, 1958–2020

“…Beyond its scientific interest, this systematic quantification of the prevalence and patterns of legal integration and differentiation may also contribute to the ongoing normative debate on the usefulness of DI as a tool to advance integration whilst accommodating vital national preferences (Chiocchetti 2021). In particular, the clear evidence of a reluctant use in past and existing EU law should allay overexaggerated fears of a corrosive impact of differentiation on European unity and solidarity but also warn about the structural limits to its expansion and the low feasibility of its more ambitious variants.…”

Peoples’ perspectives on the ‘Future of Europe’ – A comparative study from within and beyond the European Union

“…In the context of Brexit, Schimmelfennig (2018) advanced the concept into ‘differentiated dis integration’ as a wish of countries to selectively reduce the level and scope of integration (see also Gänzle et al, 2020). Partly due to their recency, little is known about public support for different schemes of external differentiated integration (Chiocchetti, 2021; but see Schuessler et al, 2023). The lack of a public opinion perspective on EU–non-EU relations is a more general phenomenon, which is, for example, also the case for the aforementioned studies on the future of EUrope.…”