IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v16y2015i1p3-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why no twin-track Europe? Unity, discontent, and differentiation in European integration

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas H Hvidsten
  • Jon Hovi

Abstract

European integration has grown increasingly differentiated. EU member countries now integrate at different speeds and frequently resort to opt-out clauses, while occasionally voicing deep discontent with the direction of the integration process. Nevertheless, European integration essentially remains a single-track enterprise, whereby member countries move in the same direction under the same set of EU institutions. Offering a novel perspective on EU integration, we argue that the real puzzle is not why integration has become differentiated but rather why it has not become more differentiated. Using a simple formal model to illustrate and deepen our argument, we throw new light on the bewildering coexistence of unity, discontent, and differentiation in the European project. We show that a twin-track Europe would likely leave more EU members discontented.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas H Hvidsten & Jon Hovi, 2015. "Why no twin-track Europe? Unity, discontent, and differentiation in European integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 3-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:16:y:2015:i:1:p:3-22
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116514557964
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116514557964
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116514557964?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. J. Liebowitz & Stephen E. Margolis, 1994. "Network Externality: An Uncommon Tragedy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 133-150, Spring.
    2. Ahrens Joachim & Ohr Renate & Zeddies Götz, 2007. "Enhanced Cooperation in an Enlarged EU," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 58(2), pages 130-150, August.
    3. Liebowitz, S J & Margolis, Stephen E, 1995. "Path Dependence, Lock-in, and History," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 205-226, April.
    4. Alexander C‐G. Stubb, 1996. "A Categorization of Differentiated Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(2), pages 283-295, June.
    5. Slapin, Jonathan B., 2008. "Bargaining Power at Europe's Intergovernmental Conferences: Testing Institutional and Intergovernmental Theories," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 131-162, January.
    6. Schneider, Gerald & Cederman, Lars-Erik, 1994. "The change of tide in political cooperation: a limited information model of European integration," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(4), pages 633-662, October.
    7. Josep M. Colomer, 1999. "On the Geometry of Unanimity Rule," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(4), pages 543-553, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    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. Silverberg, Gerald, 1997. "Evolutionary modeling in economics : recent history and immediate prospects," Research Memorandum 008, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Jan Fagerberg & David C Mowery & Bart Verspagen, 2009. "The evolution of Norway's national innovation system," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(6), pages 431-444, July.
    3. Brousseau, Eric & Raynaud, Emmanuel, 2011. "“Climbing the hierarchical ladders of rules”: A life-cycle theory of institutional evolution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 65-79.
    4. Hunt, Shelby D., 1997. "Resource-advantage theory and the wealth of nations: Developing the socio-economic research tradition," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 335-357.
    5. Ruttan, Vernon W., 1996. "Sources Of Technical Change: Induced Innovation, Evolutionary Theory And Path Dependence," Bulletins 12974, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    6. Laura Baraldi, 2004. "Esternalita' Di Rete: Una Rassegna," Working Papers 12_2004, D.E.S. (Department of Economic Studies), University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.
    7. Christophe Crombez & Pieterjan Vangerven, 2014. "Procedural models of European Union politics: Contributions and suggestions for improvement," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 289-308, June.
    8. Jin, Wei & Zhang, ZhongXiang, 2015. "Levelling the playing field: On the missing role of network externality in designing renewable energy technology deployment policies," Working Papers 249514, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    9. Pasquale Lubello, 2022. "Probit 9 in international trade: another case of institutional path dependence," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 103(2), pages 97-116, June.
    10. Kiwit Daniel, 1996. "Path-Dependence In Technological And Institutional Change – Some Criticisms And Suggestions," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 69-94, March.
    11. Milne, Alistair, 2006. "What is in it for us? Network effects and bank payment innovation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 1613-1630, June.
    12. Choi, Young Back, 2008. "Path dependence and the Korean alphabet," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 185-201, February.
    13. Roman Beck & Daniel Beimborn & Tim Weitzel & Wolfgang König, 2008. "Network effects as drivers of individual technology adoption: Analyzing adoption and diffusion of mobile communication services," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 415-429, September.
    14. Calcei Didier, 2000. "Winners, Losers and Microsoft. Competition and Antitrust in High Technology: Stan J. Liebowitz & Stephen E. Margolis," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 197-206, March.
    15. Vanberg, Margit A., 2005. "Network Externalities and Interconnection Incentives," ZEW Discussion Papers 05-80, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. COLLA, Paolo & GARCIA, Filomena, 2004. "Technology adoption with forward looking agents," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2004041, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    17. Brousseau, Eric & Garrouste, Pierre & Raynaud, Emmanuel, 2011. "Institutional changes: Alternative theories and consequences for institutional design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(1-2), pages 3-19, June.
    18. repec:dau:papers:123456789/13244 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Marciano, Alain & Khalil, Elias L., 2012. "Optimization, path dependence and the law: Can judges promote efficiency?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 72-82.
    20. José Luis Castro-Montero & Edwin Alblas & Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2018. "The Court of Justice and treaty revision: A case of strategic leniency?," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 570-596, December.
    21. Kiwit Daniel, 1996. "Path-dependence in technological and institutional change -- some criticisms and suggestions," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, March.

    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:sae:eeupol:v:16:y:2015:i:1:p:3-22. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.