Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The limits of support for differentiated integr...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The limits of support for differentiated integration in the European Union as perceived by academic experts

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The limits of support for differentiated integration in the European Union as perceived by academic experts. / Kröger, Sandra; Loughran, Thomas.
In: Political Research Exchange, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2123744, 31.12.2022.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Kröger S, Loughran T. The limits of support for differentiated integration in the European Union as perceived by academic experts. Political Research Exchange. 2022 Dec 31;4(1):2123744. Epub 2022 Sept 19. doi: 10.1080/2474736x.2022.2123744

Author

Bibtex

@article{5a8adf7f7e074831a3a6695d6497c041,
title = "The limits of support for differentiated integration in the European Union as perceived by academic experts",
abstract = "Differentiated integration (DI) in the European Union has recently attracted considerable scholarly and political attention. Yet, we know rather little about where scholars{\textquoteright} normative support of DI begins and where it ends, and whether there is scholarly consensus about which type of DI warrants support. This contribution addresses which type of DI scholars support, and which policy areas should be exempt. It explores these questions by means of a novel expert survey (n = 95). Three broad observations can be made. First, whilst support for DI is strong in the abstract, it becomes much weaker when empirically applied. Second, the high levels of support are not necessarily in tune with the perceived risks of DI. Third, there is a fair amount of expert disagreement around DI. We defend the view that the type of disagreement we see in the findings is valid and substantively relevant because it highlights genuine diffusion (as opposed to conceptual confusion) in the distribution of preferences among experts that has previously been largely obscured. The article thereby also makes a contribution to the literature on expert surveys, discussing the distinction between benchmarking and non-benchmarking expert surveys, and the legitimacy of expert disagreement.",
keywords = "Differentiated integration, European Union, expert survey, European integration, expert disagreement",
author = "Sandra Kr{\"o}ger and Thomas Loughran",
year = "2022",
month = dec,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1080/2474736x.2022.2123744",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
journal = "Political Research Exchange",
issn = "2474-736X",
publisher = "Informa UK Limited",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The limits of support for differentiated integration in the European Union as perceived by academic experts

AU - Kröger, Sandra

AU - Loughran, Thomas

PY - 2022/12/31

Y1 - 2022/12/31

N2 - Differentiated integration (DI) in the European Union has recently attracted considerable scholarly and political attention. Yet, we know rather little about where scholars’ normative support of DI begins and where it ends, and whether there is scholarly consensus about which type of DI warrants support. This contribution addresses which type of DI scholars support, and which policy areas should be exempt. It explores these questions by means of a novel expert survey (n = 95). Three broad observations can be made. First, whilst support for DI is strong in the abstract, it becomes much weaker when empirically applied. Second, the high levels of support are not necessarily in tune with the perceived risks of DI. Third, there is a fair amount of expert disagreement around DI. We defend the view that the type of disagreement we see in the findings is valid and substantively relevant because it highlights genuine diffusion (as opposed to conceptual confusion) in the distribution of preferences among experts that has previously been largely obscured. The article thereby also makes a contribution to the literature on expert surveys, discussing the distinction between benchmarking and non-benchmarking expert surveys, and the legitimacy of expert disagreement.

AB - Differentiated integration (DI) in the European Union has recently attracted considerable scholarly and political attention. Yet, we know rather little about where scholars’ normative support of DI begins and where it ends, and whether there is scholarly consensus about which type of DI warrants support. This contribution addresses which type of DI scholars support, and which policy areas should be exempt. It explores these questions by means of a novel expert survey (n = 95). Three broad observations can be made. First, whilst support for DI is strong in the abstract, it becomes much weaker when empirically applied. Second, the high levels of support are not necessarily in tune with the perceived risks of DI. Third, there is a fair amount of expert disagreement around DI. We defend the view that the type of disagreement we see in the findings is valid and substantively relevant because it highlights genuine diffusion (as opposed to conceptual confusion) in the distribution of preferences among experts that has previously been largely obscured. The article thereby also makes a contribution to the literature on expert surveys, discussing the distinction between benchmarking and non-benchmarking expert surveys, and the legitimacy of expert disagreement.

KW - Differentiated integration

KW - European Union

KW - expert survey

KW - European integration

KW - expert disagreement

U2 - 10.1080/2474736x.2022.2123744

DO - 10.1080/2474736x.2022.2123744

M3 - Journal article

VL - 4

JO - Political Research Exchange

JF - Political Research Exchange

SN - 2474-736X

IS - 1

M1 - 2123744

ER -