Since the early 1990s, European integration has become increasingly differentiated. Analysing the conditions under which member states make use of the opportunity to opt out of, or exclude other countries from, European integration, we argue that different explanations apply to treaty and accession negotiations, respectively. Threatening to block deeper integration, member states with strong national identities secure differentiations in treaty reform. In enlargement, in turn, old member states fear economic disadvantages and low administrative capacity and therefore impose differentiation on poor newcomers. Opt-outs from treaty revisions are limited to the area of core state powers, whereas they also occur in the market in the context of enlargement.
Adler-NissenR (2008) The diplomacy of opting out: A Bourdieudian approach to national integration strategies. Journal of Common Market Studies46, 663–684.
2.
Adler-NissenR (2009) Behind the scenes of differentiated integration: Circumventing national opt-outs in Justice and Home Affairs. Journal of European Public Policy16(1): 62–80.
3.
Adler-NissenR (2011) Opting out of an ever closer union: The integration Doxa and the management of sovereignty. West European Politics34(5): 1092–1113.
4.
BakkerRDe VriesCEdwardsE (2015) Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999-2010. Party Politics21(1): 143–152.
5.
BakkerREdwardsEHoogheL (2015) 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey. Version 2015.1, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North CarolinaAvailable at: http://chesdata.eu/ (accessed 1 August 2015).
6.
BörzelTA (2005) Mind the gap! European integration between level and scope. Journal of European Public Policy12(2): 217–236.
7.
CareyS (2002) Undivided loyalties: Is national identity an obstacle to European integration?European Union Politics3(4): 387–413.
8.
de VriesCE (2007) Sleeping giant: Fact or fairytale?: How European integration affects national elections. European Union Politics8(3): 363–385.
9.
de VriesCEEdwardsEE (2009) Taking Europe to its extremes: Extremist parties and public euroscepticism. Party Politics15(1): 5–28.
10.
DimitrovaASteunenbergB (2000) The search for convergence of national policies in the European Union: An impossible quest?European Union Politics1(2): 201–226.
11.
DuttleTHolzingerKMalangT (forthcoming) Opting out from European Union legislation: The differentiation of secondary law. Journal of European Public Policy.
12.
DysonKSeposA (2010) Differentiation as design principle and as tool in the political management of European integration. In: DysonKSeposA (eds) Which Europe?, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 3–23.
13.
GenschelPJachtenfuchsM (2014) Introduction: Beyond market regulation. Analysing the European integration of core state powers. In: GenschelPJachtenfuchsM (eds) Beyond the Regulatory Polity? The European Integration of Core State Powers, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–23.
14.
HeniszWJ (2002) The institutional environment for infrastructure investment. Industrial and Corporate Change11(2): 355–389.
15.
HoffmannS (1966) Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state in the case of Western Europe. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences95, 862–915.
16.
HolzingerKSchimmelfennigF (2012) Differentiated integration in the European Union: Many concepts, sparse theory, few data. Journal of European Public Policy19(2): 292–305.
17.
HoogheLMarksG (2005) Calculation, community and cues: Public opinion on European integration. European Union Politics6(4): 419–443.
18.
HoogheLMarksG (2008) A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science39(01): 1–23.
19.
Hvidsten AH and Hovi J (2015) Why no twin-track Europe? Unity, discontent, and differentiation in European integration. European Union Politics 16(1): 3–22.
20.
JensenCBSlapinJB (2012) Institutional hokey-pokey: The politics of multispeed integration in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy19(6): 779–795.
21.
KöllikerA (2001) Bringing together or driving apart the union? Towards a theory of differentiated integration. West European Politics24(4): 125–151.
22.
KöllikerA (2006) Flexibility and European Unification: The Logic of Differentiated Integration, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
23.
KriesiHGrandeELachatR (2006) Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research45(6): 921–956.
24.
MajoneG (2009) Europe as the Would-Be World Power. The EU at Fifty, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
MoravcsikA (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
26.
MoravcsikAVachudovaM (2005) Preferences, power, and equilibrium: The causes and consequences of EU enlargement. In: SchimmelfennigFSedelmeierU (eds) The Politics of European Union Enlargement: Theoretical Approaches, London: Routledge, pp. 198–212.
27.
PlümperTSchneiderCJ (2007) Discriminatory European Union membership and the redistribution of enlargement gains. Journal of Conflict Resolution51(4): 568–587.
28.
RayL (1999) Measuring party orientations towards European integration: Results from an expert survey. European Journal of Political Research36(2): 283–306.
29.
SchimmelfennigFWinzenT (2014) Instrumental and constitutional differentiation in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies52(2): 354–370.
30.
SchmitterP (1969) Three neo-functional hypotheses about international integration. International Organization23(1): 161–166.
31.
SchneiderCJ (2009) Conflict, Negotiations, and EU Enlargement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
SteenbergenMMarksG (2007) Evaluating expert surveys. European Journal of Political Research46(3): 347–366.
33.
StubbACG (1997) The 1996 intergovernmental conference and the management of flexible integration. Journal of European Public Policy4(1): 37–55.
34.
Tomz M, Wittenberg J and King G (2003) CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.1. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University, January 5. Available at: http://gking.harvard.edu/ (accessed 1 August 2015).
35.
WarleighA (2002) Flexible Integration. Which Model for the European Union, Sheffield: Sheffield University Press.
36.
ZhelyazkovaA (2014) From selective integration into selective implementation: The link between differentiated integration and conformity with EU laws. European Journal of Political Research53(4): 727–746.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
