Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Party views on differentiated integration

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Comparative European Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

Research on differentiated integration (DI) has by and large ignored the views of political party actors on DI. Drawing on 35 semi-structured interviews with party actors from seven member states and situated across the political spectrum, we show them to regard DI as divisive and deeply political. We also identify two little explored dimensions affecting their views: namely the wealth of their member state (MS) and its prior experience of DI. Interviewees from richer MS generally favour DI more than those from poorer MS, and those from MS that have not experienced sovereignty or capacity DI welcome DI more than those from MS that have. While the former tend to see DI as allowing both opt outs for MS unwilling or unable to integrate further and enhanced cooperation for MS able and desirous of doing so, the latter fear their MS being excluded and relegated to a second-class status.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. Interviews were planned to be in-person; however, the Covid19 outbreak in March 2020 prompted a shift to online and phone interviews.

  2. Parties were classified as pro-EU or anti-EU based on the latest Chapel Hill expert survey (Bakker et al. 2020).

  3. This view is corroborated by the fact that when we asked respondents what reforms they foresaw for the EU, none of them spontaneously indicated DI as a preferred outcome.

References

  • Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2011. Opting out of an ever closer union: The integration Doxa and the management of sovereignty. West European Politics 34 (5): 1092–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aylott, Nicholas. 2005. Lessons learned, lessons forgotten: The Swedish referendum on EMU of september 2003. Government and Opposition 40 (4): 540–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, Ryan, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Gary Marks, Jonathan Polk, Jan Rovny, Marco Steenbergen, and Milada Vachudova (2020). 2019 Chapel Hill Expert Survey (version 2019.1) . University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Retrieved from chesdata.eu

  • Bevir, Mark, and Roderick A. W. Rhodes. 2006. Defending interpretation. European Political Science 5 (1): 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brack, Nathalie. 2015. The roles of Eurosceptic members of the European Parliament and their implications for the EU. International Political Science Review 6 (3): 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopin, Thierry, and Christian Lequesne. 2016. Differentiation as a double-edged sword: Member states’ practices and Brexit. International Affairs 92 (3): 531–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, Deirdre. 2014. Challenging executive dominance in european democracy. Mod. l. Rev. 77: 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Blok, Lisanne, and Catherine E. de Vries (2020). 'A blessing and a curse? Examining public preferences for differentiated integration (05–06–2020)', unpublished manuscript.

  • de Vries, Catherine E., Wouter van Der Brug, Marcel H. van Egmond, and Cees van Der Eijk. 2011. Individual and contextual variation in EU issue voting: The role of political information. Electoral Studies 30 (1): 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, Catherine E., and Sara B. Hobolt. 2012. When dimensions collide: the electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics 13 (2): 246–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, Erik O. 2018. Political differentiation and the problem of dominance: Segmentation and hegemony. European Journal of Political Research 57 (4): 989–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017) White Paper on the Future of Europe, 1 March, available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/white_paper_on_the_future_of_europe_en.pdf (accessed 31 March 2021).

  • Freeden, Michael. 1998. Ideologies and political theory: A conceptual approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fossum, John E. 2015. Democracy and differentiation in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 22 (6): 799–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genschel, Philipp, and Markus Jachtenfuchs. 2016. More integration, less federation: The European integration of core state powers. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (1): 42–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, Robert E. 2008. Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Green-Pedersen, Christoffer. 2012. A giant fast asleep? Party incentives and the politicisation of European integration. Political Studies 60 (1): 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heermann, Max, and Dirk Leuffen. 2020. No representation without integration! Why differentiated integaration challenges the compostion of the European parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies 58 (4): 1016–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, Sara B. 2007. Taking cues on Europe? Voter competence and party endorsementsin referndums on European integration. European Journal of Political Research 46 (2): 151–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzinger, Katharina, and Frank Schimmelfennig. 2012. Differentiated integration in the european union: Many concepts, sparse theory, few data. Journal of European Public Policy 19 (2): 292–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2018. Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy 25 (1): 109–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, Liesbet, Gary Marks, and Carole J. Wilson. 2002. Does left/right structure party positions on European integration? Comparative Political Studies 35 (8): 965–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Integrating Diversity in the European Union (InDivEU) (n.d.), 'The Politics of Differentiated Integration: What do Governments Want?', InDivEU Country Reports on Government Preferences on Differentiated Integration. Retrieved from http://indiveu.eui.eu/integrated-database/ (accessed 8 April 2021)

  • Kelly, Susan E. 2010. Qualitative interviewing techniques and styles. In The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods in health research, ed. Ivy Bourgeault, Robert Dingwall, and Ray de Vries. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kölliker, Alkuin. 2001. ’Bringing together or driving apart the union? Towards a theory of differentiated integration. West European Politics 24 (4): 125–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leruth, Benjamin, Jarle Trondal, and Stefan Gänzle. 2020. Party positions on differentiated European integration in the Nordic countries: growing together, growing apart? Politics and Governance 8 (4): 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuffen, Dirk, Julian Schuessler and Jana Gómez Díaz (2020). 'Public support for differentiated integration: individual liberal values and concerns about member state discrimination.' Journal of European Public Policy. Advance online publication.

  • Lord, Christopher. 2015. ’Utopia or dystopia? Towards a normative analysis of differentiated integration. Journal of European Public Policy 22 (6): 783–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, Peter. 2013. Ruling the Void: The hollowing of western democracy. London, New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malang, Thomas, and Katharina Holzinger. 2020. The political economy of differentiated integration: The case of common agricultural policy. The Review of International Organizations 15: 741–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijers, Maurits J. 2017. Contagious Euroscepticism: The impact of Eurosceptic support on mainstream party positions on European integration. Party Politics 23 (4): 413–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prosser, Christopher. 2016. Dimensionality, ideology and party positions towards European integration. West European Politics 39 (2): 731–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, Constantin, Sebastian A. Popa, Daniela Braun, and Hermann Schmitt. 2021. The reshaping of political conflict over Europe: From pre-Maastricht to post-"Euro crisis". West European Politics 44 (3): 531–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2014. EU enlargement and differentiated integration: Discrimination or equal treatment? Journal of European Public Policy 21 (5): 681–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2019. The choice for differentiated Europe: An intergovernmentalist theoretical framework. Comparative European Politics 17 (2): 176–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraff, Dominik, and Frank Schimmelfennig. 2020. Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum. European Union Politics 21 (4): 590–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz-Shea, Perrine, and Dvora Yanow. 2012. Interpretive research design : Concepts and processes. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karen, Siune, Palle Svensson, and Ole Tonsgaard. 1994. The European Union: The Danes said ‘no’ in 1992 but ‘yes’ in 1995: How and why? Electoral Studies 13 (2): 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen, Marco R., Erica E. Edwards, and Catherine de Vries. 2007. Who’s Cueing Whom?: Mass-Elite Linkages and the Future of European Integration. European Union Politics 8 (1): 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubb, Alexander. 1996. A Categorization of differentiated integration. Journal of Common Market Studies 34 (2): 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topaloff, Liubomir K. 2018. Euroscepticism and Political Parties. In Routledge handbook of Euroscepticism, ed. Benjamin Leruth, Nick Startin, and Simon M. Usherwood, 63–74. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J. 2020. The impact of EU intervention on political parties’ politicisation of Europe following the financial crisis. West European Politics 43 (4): 894–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, Jonathan, and Lea Ypi. 2016. The meaning of partisanship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Gene (2019). Applied Qualitative Research Design. Waltham Abbey: EDTECH.

  • Winzen, Thomas. 2016. From capacity to sovereignty: Legislative politics and differentiated integration in the European Union. European Journal of Political Research 55 (1): 100–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winzen, Thomas. 2020. Government Euroscepticism and differentiated integration. Journal of European Public Policy 27 (12): 1819–1837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments which helped to improve the paper further. The usual disclaimer applies.

Funding

This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement 822304.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University College London, 31 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9QU, UK

    Richard Bellamy

  2. Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Rennes Drive, Exeter, EX4 4RJ, UK

    Sandra Kröger

  3. London School of Economics, European Institute, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK

    Marta Lorimer

Authors
  1. Richard Bellamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra Kröger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marta Lorimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Kröger.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: List of respondents

Appendix: List of respondents

  1. 1.

    Advisor, National Liberal Party (PNL), Romania, June 2020

  2. 2.

    Co-chair, Politics Can Be Different (LMP), Hungary, March 2020

  3. 3.

    Elected official, Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik), Hungary, March 2020

  4. 4.

    International Secretary, Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP), Hungary, March 2020

  5. 5.

    Elected official, Democratic Coalition (DK), Hungary, March 2020

  6. 6.

    Advisor, Democratic Coalition (DK), Hungary, March 2020

  7. 7.

    Elected Official, Conservative People's Party (K), Denmark, March 2020

  8. 8.

    Elected Official, Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik), Hungary, March 2020

  9. 9.

    Elected Official, Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), Germany, March 2020

  10. 10.

    Advisor, The Left (LINKE), Germany, March 2020

  11. 11.

    Elected Official, Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), Germany, March 2020

  12. 12.

    Advisor, Red-Green Alliance (EL), Denmark, March 2020

  13. 13.

    Elected Official, Left, Denmark's Liberal Party, (V), Denmark, March 2020

  14. 14.

    Advisor, Socialist People’s Party (SF), Denmark, March 2020

  15. 15.

    Advisor, Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), Germany, April 2020

  16. 16.

    Elected Official, Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPO), Austria, April 2020

  17. 17.

    Elected Official, Austrian People's Party (OVP), Austria, April 2020

  18. 18.

    Elected Official, Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR), Romania, April 2020

  19. 19.

    Elected Official, Social Democrats (SD), Denmark, April 2020

  20. 20.

    Advisor, Left Bloc (BE), Portugal, April 2020

  21. 21.

    Elected Official, Save Romania Union (USR), Romania, April 2020

  22. 22.

    Elected Official, Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), Greece, April 2020

  23. 23.

    Elected Official, New Democracy (ND), Greece, April 2020

  24. 24.

    Elected Official, Danish Social Liberal Party (RV), Denmark, April 2020

  25. 25.

    Elected Official, Freedom, Unity and Solidarity Party (PLUS), Romania, April 2020

  26. 26.

    Elected Official, Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), Greece, May 2020

  27. 27.

    Elected Official, Alternative for Germany (AfD), Germany, May 2020

  28. 28.

    Elected Official, Socialist Party (PS), Portugal, May 2020

  29. 29.

    Elected Official, Left Bloc (BE), Portugal, May 2020

  30. 30.

    Elected Official, The Left (LINKE), Germany, May 2020

  31. 31.

    Advisor, National Liberal Party (PNL), Romania, June 2020

  32. 32.

    Advisor, Danish Social Liberal Party (RV), Denmark, June 2020

  33. 33.

    Advisor, Austrian People's Party (OVP), Austria, June 2020

  34. 34.

    Advisor, Left, Denmark's Liberal Party (V), Denmark, June 2020

  35. 35.

    Elected Official, Social Democratic Party (PSD), Portugal, June 2020

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bellamy, R., Kröger, S. & Lorimer, M. Party views on differentiated integration. Comp Eur Polit 19, 622–641 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-021-00250-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-021-00250-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation