Mapping Differentiated Integration

Schimmelfennig, Frank; Winzen, Thomas

doi:10.1093/oso/9780198854333.003.0004

Cited by 32 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We contribute to the literature on EU decision-making and politicisation by finding strong evidence of ‘bottom-up’ politicisation (Bressanelli et al., 2020) where domestic national party politics, either directly driven by governments or indirectly channelled through oppositions – depending on the policy area – substantially affect voting in the Council. This contradicts the view that the Council is insulated and distant from domestic political developments (Schimmelfennig and Winzen, 2020: 83–86).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Oppositional voting in the Council of the EU between 2010 and 2019: Evidence for differentiated politicisation

Pircher

Farjam

2021

European Union Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a new and previously unchartered dataset on roll call votes for all 28 member states in the Council of the EU between 2010 and 2019 and studies the effects of politicisation on governments' oppositional voting in the different policy areas. We contribute to the literature with two main findings. First, our study provides strong evidence for bottom-up politicisation, where Euroscepticism and the left-right positions of national political parties strongly affect governments' voting in the Council. Second, we provide new evidence for a form of differentiated politicisation where ideological standpoints of political parties in government and opposition have different effects on oppositional voting in the various policy areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Oppositional voting in the Council of the EU between 2010 and 2019: Evidence for differentiated politicisation

Pircher

Farjam

2021

European Union Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Building on the first three dimension in Table 1 , Schimmelfennig and Winzen ( 2020 ) distinguish three alternative models of differentiated integration in the EU. In the ‘ Multi-Speed Europe’ model differentiation is a temporary phenomenon as exceptions from common rules get phased-out over time.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework: Systems Of Differentiated Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, DI means that not all member states participate in all EU policies to the same extent and at the same time. Accordingly, differences in the policy -specific integration preferences and capacities of the member states are at the core of positive theories on the origins and empirical patterns of DI (Leuffen et al 2013 ; Schimmelfennig and Winzen 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This perspective is captured in the concept of the EU as a system of differentiated integration (Leuffen et al 2013 ). Depending on the predominant patterns of differentiation, it has been suggested that the system could variously take the form of a ‘Multi-Speed Europe’, a ‘core Europe’, or a ‘Europe à la carte’ (Schimmelfennig and Winzen 2020 ). While the ‘Multi-Speed Europe’ model suggests that differentiation is a temporary phenomenon, the ‘core Europe’ and ‘Europe a la carte’ models imply the possibility of permanent polity differentiation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attitudes of national decision-makers towards differentiated integration in the European Union

Telle¹,

Badulescu

Fernandes

2022

Comp Eur Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differentiated integration (DI) in the European Union (EU) has mainly been understood as variation in participation in common policies. But DI also has implications for the nature and functioning of the EU as a polity. While temporary DI may facilitate deeper integration, permanent DI is liable to increase transaction costs and fragmentation. However, little is known about how such alternatives are assessed by decision-makers in the member states. This article uses novel quantitative and qualitative data to shed light on this question. It looks at the explanatory role of various types of opt-outs and at member states’ dependence, capacity, and identity. We find that temporary and permanent differentiation are assessed differently in the member states but neither alternative is clearly preferred. Long-term involuntary opt-outs are related to negative assessments of both forms of DI. Surprisingly, voluntary opt-outs do not seem to lead to more positive assessments of DI. We also find that the temporary DI is preferred in smaller member states, while support for permanent DI is higher in larger member states. Finally, we find differences in the effects of dependency, capacity, and identity between older and newer member states.

show abstract

“…Recent theorizing and empirical research has covered the trajectories, causes and conditions of differentiated integration in EU treaties and legislation extensively (see, e.g., Leuffen et al., 2013; Schimmelfennig and Winzen, 2020). It has established that EU enlargement has significantly increased the heterogeneity of EU member states – and that the expansion of supranational policy-making into areas of core state powers such as internal and external security policies as well as fiscal and monetary policies has made European integration more controversial and raised concerns about national identity and sovereignty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum

Schraff

Schimmelfennig

2020

European Union Politics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differentiation has become a durable feature of European integration but we know little about its effects on citizens. Does differentiated integration improve the democratic quality of the European Union and strengthen citizens’ support – or does it promote political divides and foster citizens’ alienation from European integration? This article develops a theoretical argument on the positive attitudinal effects of differentiated integration, contending that differentiation accommodates heterogeneous preferences in a diverse EU and strengthens citizens’ ownership of European integration. A quasi-experimental analysis of public opinion of the 2015 Danish Justice and Home Affairs opt-out referendum demonstrates that the public vote increased citizens’ EU efficacy, indeed. Eurosceptic voters in particular strengthen their belief that their individual voice counts in EU politics, suggesting that differentiation can have a positive effect on the perceived democratic quality of the EU.

show abstract

Mapping Differentiated Integration

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

Oppositional voting in the Council of the EU between 2010 and 2019: Evidence for differentiated politicisation

Oppositional voting in the Council of the EU between 2010 and 2019: Evidence for differentiated politicisation

Attitudes of national decision-makers towards differentiated integration in the European Union

Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About