Nordic Cooperation Schemes: Mapping and Measuring Fragmentation

(Increased) differentiated integration within the EU, as well as alternative membership arrangements (with EEA countries such as Norway, within the Eastern Partnership, and -at some point of time- with the UK), are often regarded as pragmatic, flexible solutions to functional diversity and divergent policy preferences. It can even be argued that such flexible schemes are to be preferred to a uniform one-size-fits-all approach, which does not take into account differentials between countries. The flip-side is that these flexible cooperation schemes may lead to a fuzzy and fragmented institutional, legal, and financial set-up, in which policy coordination (across policies and across countries) is increasingly difficult. Up till now, differentiation has been measured and analysed by focusing on specific policy fields. This kind of work has been done mainly by Schimmelfennig et al., for example by looking at Treaty articles that enable opt-outs, or by looking at the actual participation of EU Member States (in secondary legislation) in certain policy fields (Schimmelfennig, 2018; Dutle et al., 2017; Schimmelfenning & Winzen, 2016; Schimmelfennig, 2016; Leuffen, Rittberger & Schimmelfennig, 2012; Holzinger & Schimmelfennig, 2012). However, this approach does not fully catch many actual developments, such as those in Northern Europe (Scandinavia and/or the Baltic region). Here we find a large number of different (and varying) schemes, which enable cooperation in diverse, sometimes linked or overlapping, policy fields, involving EU Member States and non-EU countries. Examples are the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers, the Nordic Passport Union, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the EU macro-regional strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, and –most recently- the Nordic Defense Cooperation (NORDEFCO). In addition, the special position that Norway has, through the EEA agreement and full participation in the Single European Market, through participation in the Schengen cooperation, and through additional bilateral agreements, as well as the non-membership of Sweden and Finland of NATO, further make the overall picture very complicated. This paper has three objectives. First, to map the various Nordic cooperation schemes, looking at policy fields, membership/geographical coverage, institutional set-up, competencies, finances et cetera. Secondly, to present a brief overview of the main arguments in favour and against differentiated integration, as a stepping-stone to the next part. Thirdly, and most importantly, using the Nordic case as a working example, the paper develops a series of new and more refined measures of differentiation (or: fragmentation).