A Demoicratic Justification of Differentiated Integration in a Heterogeneous EU

27 Pages Posted: 7 Jun 2017

See all articles by Richard Bellamy

Richard Bellamy

University College London - Department of Political Science

Sandra Kröger

University of Exeter - Department of Politics

Date Written: June 5, 2017

Abstract

Earlier scholarship assumed differentiated integration (DI) was pragmatic and temporary and that member states should and would converge on the same policies. By contrast, we contend that many instances of DI can be normatively justified on democratic grounds of fairness, impartiality and equity as suitable ways to accommodate economic, social and cultural heterogeneity. We distinguish between instrumental, constitutional and legislative differentiation and relate them respectively to problems of proportionality, partiality and difference. In so far as member states have unequal stakes in EU level collective decisions, reflecting, their economic and social heterogeneity, or apply distinct constitutional norms to them, reflecting their cultural heterogeneity, then fairness and impartiality in decision-making justify respectively instrumental and constitutional DI, while the equity of regulations when applied to relevantly different agents and agencies warrant legislative forms of DI.

Keywords: EU; Demoicracy; Differentiated Integration; Heterogeneity; Republican Intergovernmentalism; Democratic Theory

Suggested Citation

Bellamy, Richard and Kröger, Sandra, A Demoicratic Justification of Differentiated Integration in a Heterogeneous EU (June 5, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2981036 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2981036

Richard Bellamy (Contact Author)

University College London - Department of Political Science ( email )

Gower Street
London
United Kingdom

HOME PAGE: http://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=RBELL43

Sandra Kröger

University of Exeter - Department of Politics ( email )

Amory Building
Rennes Drive
Exeter, Devon EX4 4RJ
United Kingdom

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
58
Abstract Views
609
Rank
658,995
PlumX Metrics