Advantages And Disadvantages Of Differentiated Integration

Introduction

Differentiated integration is an expression used to outline any set of arrangements, both within and outside of the EU-s institutional order, that embody a departure from the principle that all member states must move towards the same objectives at the same speed. Because EU centralization and territorial extension uniquely vary across policies, we see the European Union as a system of differentiated integration (Leuffen, Rittberger & Schimmelfennig, 2012). Some examples of the differentiated integration would be the monetary policy that does not apply to all the Member states, the Schengen regime that does not apply in some of the member states but applies in some non-member states and internal market rules that have been adopted

The differentiated integration would solve the problem of uniform integration that is not flexible at all by giving the opportunity to different groups of countries to choose the level of integration on which they want to cooperate with each other and the policies could be integrated at different levels of centralization. Differentiated integration is very useful for adapting to the international diversity and to prevent impasse in case of necessary intergovernmental consent. (Leuffen, Rittberger & Schimmelfennig, 2013; Holzinger & Schimmelfennig,

(Moravcsik, 1993) It is assumed by LI as well as by supranationalism, that interdependence is the main factor that drives the integration. (Sweet & Sandholtz, 1997) According to LI, if there is heterogeneity of interests, the states prefer to choose differentiation in order to come as close as possible to their preference and avoid the outcome being determined by the power with the highest bargaining power. The higher the international interdependence is or the earlier it was developed in certain area, the earlier the policy is likely to be integrated and vice versa. However, if the differentiation’s transaction costs are higher than its benefits, the governments will block or even halt the process. Differentiation can also create some negative externalities but they would be long term only if the ones that lost would be compensated or if they don’t have the bargaining power, which results not only from material capabilities but also from institutional factors. Countries that are more likely to have problems with ratification can easier reach ‘opt-out’, which explains subsequent concessions after negative referendums regarding Maastricht and Lisbon treaties of Denmark and Ireland. In addition to that, it is much easier to discriminate new member states and non-member states compared to the older member states. (Leuffen, Rittberger & Schimmelfennig, 2013) For example, the EU has