Same, same, but different effects: Why do crises in the EU lead to different outcomes? A comparative analysis of the main features of the migration and the Euro crisis and their effects on European integration

We live in a time of "permacrisis", which has presented an unprecedented number of challenges to the EU on multiple fronts (Riddervold et al. 2021, p. 4). Still we see that the impact of crises on European integration differs from one case to the other. This gives rise to the following puzzle: why has a phenomenon which is described with one and the same label, i.e. that of a "crisis" led to different outcomes? Building on the work of Hupkens, Neuhold & Vanhoonacker (2023), this article argues that one crisis is not like another and that the variation in crisis outcomes can to a large extent, be accounted for by identifying the type of crisis that is at stake. These different gradations of crisis - broadly classified as mild, severe and existential - are measured by three analytical dimensions: severity, symmetry and speed. Taking a closer look at the EU’s response to the Euro and migration crisis, this contribution argues that both crises were not the same. There was significant variation between the three key analytical crisis dimensions. Drawing on 30 semi-structured interviews with practitioners involved in both crises we then explain how these differences are related to the observed outcomes. In doing so, we assess which of the dimensions mattered most and how these interact. The main contribution of this article is that it takes a first step to develop an operational framework that helps identify different types of EU crises and their implications. Apart from providing a new explanatory angle to an existing debate, this also helps counter the observed inflation in the use of the term "crisis" (Kelder, 2022). Taking the Euro and migration crisis as a starting point and testing ground, it seeks to further stimulate the nascent debate on how the EU deals with crises.