Quo Vadis, Europa? Four paths and their plausibility

A. Heritier
{"title":"Quo Vadis, Europa? Four paths and their plausibility","authors":"A. Heritier","doi":"10.1108/ITPD-02-2019-001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to assess the plausibility of four different mid-term paths of development of the European Union (EU): first, a political union or a European state; second, a differentiated and flexible integration of the polity; third, a covert and deepening integration of the polity outside of the political arenas; fourth, the disintegration and/or dissolution of the EU through the exit of individual members or a joint decision to terminate the union.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe paper uses strategic interaction analysis to identify the plausibility of each of these four possible outcomes. By systematically varying the relevant actors’, i.e. European Council’s and member states’, the European Parliament’s, the Commission’s, preferences over outcomes while holding constant institutional rules of decision making on the one hand, and systematically varying institutional rules on the other while holdings actors’ preferences constant, the paper comes to the conclusion that differentiated and flexible integration and covert integration are the most plausible mid-term paths of development.\n\n\nFindings\nThe paper finds that neither a European state or deep political union nor a disintegration or even dissolution of the EU is the most plausible path of development. Rather, it concludes that flexible and differentiated integration as well as covert integration outside the political arenas are the most likely developments. However, it also draws attention to the political costs of flexible and differentiated integration which does not allow for an overall view of political and policy issues negotiated at one political table, limiting the scope of compromise formation and even leading to a fragmented polity. Covert integration consisting of mechanisms of hidden integration “invisible” to the wider public may lead to a democratic backlash, once citizens realize that integration has considerably deepened without their being aware of it.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nMost publications regarding the future development of the EU are normatively driven, either conjuring an imminent disintegration, or invoking the necessity of a deepening integration leading to a political union. This paper, by contrast, seeks to assess the likely further development based on empirically identified factors and a logical argument.\n","PeriodicalId":34605,"journal":{"name":"International Trade Politics and Development","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/ITPD-02-2019-001","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Trade Politics and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ITPD-02-2019-001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the plausibility of four different mid-term paths of development of the European Union (EU): first, a political union or a European state; second, a differentiated and flexible integration of the polity; third, a covert and deepening integration of the polity outside of the political arenas; fourth, the disintegration and/or dissolution of the EU through the exit of individual members or a joint decision to terminate the union. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses strategic interaction analysis to identify the plausibility of each of these four possible outcomes. By systematically varying the relevant actors’, i.e. European Council’s and member states’, the European Parliament’s, the Commission’s, preferences over outcomes while holding constant institutional rules of decision making on the one hand, and systematically varying institutional rules on the other while holdings actors’ preferences constant, the paper comes to the conclusion that differentiated and flexible integration and covert integration are the most plausible mid-term paths of development. Findings The paper finds that neither a European state or deep political union nor a disintegration or even dissolution of the EU is the most plausible path of development. Rather, it concludes that flexible and differentiated integration as well as covert integration outside the political arenas are the most likely developments. However, it also draws attention to the political costs of flexible and differentiated integration which does not allow for an overall view of political and policy issues negotiated at one political table, limiting the scope of compromise formation and even leading to a fragmented polity. Covert integration consisting of mechanisms of hidden integration “invisible” to the wider public may lead to a democratic backlash, once citizens realize that integration has considerably deepened without their being aware of it. Originality/value Most publications regarding the future development of the EU are normatively driven, either conjuring an imminent disintegration, or invoking the necessity of a deepening integration leading to a political union. This paper, by contrast, seeks to assess the likely further development based on empirically identified factors and a logical argument.
库瓦迪斯,欧罗巴?四条路径及其合理性
目的本文旨在评估欧盟(EU)四种不同中期发展道路的合理性:第一,政治联盟或欧洲国家;第二,政治的差异化和灵活整合;第三,政治领域之外的政体的隐蔽和深化整合;第四,通过个别成员国退出或联合决定终止欧盟而导致欧盟解体。设计/方法论/方法本文使用战略互动分析来确定这四种可能结果中每一种的合理性。通过系统地改变相关行为者的偏好,即欧洲理事会和成员国、欧洲议会和委员会对结果的偏好,同时一方面保持不变的决策制度规则,另一方面系统地改变制度规则,同时保持行为者的偏好不变,本文得出的结论是,差异化、柔性一体化和隐性一体化是最合理的中期发展路径。论文发现,无论是欧洲国家或深层政治联盟,还是欧盟的解体甚至解体,都不是最合理的发展道路。相反,它得出的结论是,灵活和有区别的一体化以及政治舞台之外的秘密一体化是最有可能的发展。然而,它也提请注意灵活和有区别的一体化的政治成本,这种一体化不允许在一张政治桌上全面看待谈判的政治和政策问题,限制了形成妥协的范围,甚至导致政治支离破碎。一旦公民意识到一体化在他们没有意识到的情况下已经大大加深,由更广泛公众“看不见”的隐性一体化机制组成的隐性一体化可能会导致民主反弹,或者援引深化一体化导致政治联盟的必要性。相比之下,本文试图基于经验确定的因素和逻辑论证来评估可能的进一步发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信