The limits of support for differentiated integration as perceived by academic experts

Abstract

We know very little about where scholars’ support of DI ends, and this is where the present contribution steps in. Which type of DI do scholars consider legitimate? For instance, do capacity and sovereignty DI, both of which serve different purposes, enjoy different degrees of support? Which policy areas should be exempt of DI, if any? For instance, do all experts keep with the EU mantra that the Single Market is indivisible? What about democratic backsliding by means of DI? And which type of DI do experts not support? This article sets out to answer these questions by means of a novel expert survey (n = 95). Our analysis has produced four main findings. First, amongst both supporters and opponents of flexible Europe, the support of DI varies depending on whether experts look at capacity or sovereignty DI respectively, with the former commanding more support than the latter. Second, the support of DI is driven by similar benefits and risks, both with regard to supporters and opponents of DI, and with regard to the different types of DI (capacity and sovereignty). Third, the large majority of actors considers that not all policy areas should be open to DI. Experts are particularly critical of DI in the areas of the Single Market, Fundamental Rights, and the Rule of Law, though with marked differences between these areas. A case study of Brexit confirms the above trends. All in all, the findings suggest that a) support for DI is strong in the abstract, but becomes much weaker when applied to more concrete questions and cases, and that b) temporary capacity DI commands more support than permanent sovereignty DI.