Sectoral Plurality of EU Transverse Integration

Abstract

A decade and a half ago, Kenneth Dyson and Martin Marcussen introduced the notion of “transverse integration.” Their article in the Journal of European Integration sought to capture policy outcomes within the specific institutional configuration of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Dyson and Marcussen’s core contribution was to propose a concept that transcended the traditional dichotomy between unitary and differentiated integration, describing instead the dynamic, hybrid, and multidimensional character of EU macroeconomic governance. Fifteen years later, one might think that the concept of transverse integration has, over time, lost visibility in the “evolutionary competition of ideas” (Toulmin 1972) shaping the mainstream conceptual vocabulary of European integration. This relative neglect is particularly visible in recent debates over the multiple crises that have challenged the European project from different angles. However, this limited subsequent application does not diminish the theoretical virtues of the concept, nor its attractiveness for empirical research. In a broader sense, transverse integration can be understood as a dynamic equilibrium that balances the tension between unitary ambitions—joint frameworks and supranational coordination—and differentiated realities—carve-outs, multi-speed integration, and national approaches—across various EU policy sectors. A renewed use of the notion of transverse integration to explore distinct issue areas of European integration is promising in two complementary ways. First, theory explains empirics: sectoral research offers an empirical arena for testing the analytical utility of this concept in capturing the newest developments within EU policies. Second, empirics sharpens theory: examining diverse policy settings can deepen and refine our theoretical understanding of transverse integration. Development of common EU defense policy, European Peace Facility decisionmaking, gradual emergence of EU common debt, energy supply crisis responses and post-crisis negotiating of energy market design changes - all these policy cases were based on tackling diverse challenges requiring different modes of cooperation between European Commission and member states. Moreover, out-of-the-box analysis of empirical manifestations of the transversive nature of EU governance requires sophisticated methodological solutions allowing, among other things, to trace how non-linear, cross-domain incentives within EU institutions — such as the European Parliament — generate differentiated responses to rule-of-law issues. Combined together, insights from various sectoral studies such work may enhance the granularity of our conceptual tools for identifying patterns of cross-sectoral integration and increase awareness of how this notion can be incorporated into broader, multidimensional arguments about the current state of EU policymaking.

Title	Details
Transverse Integration in EU CSDP Governance: The European Peace Facility in Ukraine, Niger, and with the African Union.	View Paper Details
Between Strategic Autonomy and Strategic Cacophony: How Member States Navigate the European Commission’s Influence on EU Defense Policy	View Paper Details
Transverse or Circumventive Integration? The Case of the Gradual Emergence of Common EU Debt	View Paper Details
Shaping the Union’s Response to Gas Supply Crises: Political Authority, Institutional Dynamics, and Legal Competence at Play	View Paper Details
Transverse Integration and Crisis-Driven Incrementalism: 2021-2022 Price Shock and the Partial EU Power Market Reform	View Paper Details
What Makes MEPs Respond?: A Correspondence Field Experimental Approach to Study the Politicization of Democratic Backsliding in the European Parliament	View Paper Details