Differentiated integration and the EU member states : salience and governmental positions

(1)

Codebook

Differentiated integration and the EU member

states: salience & governmental positions

1

European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced

Studies

Version April 2021

Contact: stefan.telle@eui.eu, claudia.badulescu@eui.eu

(2)

Part A – Salience (keyword counts)...3

Part B – Governmental positions (expert survey)...7

Part C – Team...13

The research leading to this output was conducted within the InDivEU project. The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 822304. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection or analysis.

(3)

Part A – Salience (keyword counts)

1) Introduction

The “DI salience” data set provides data on the salience of differentiated integration in 25 EU member states2_{. The time period covered is 2004 – 2020 (Table 1). Data collection occurred}

in the first half of 2020.

The data is based on counts of keywords (Table 2) related to differentiated integration in parliamentary debates. The assumption is that the frequency with which these keywords are referred to is correlated to the importance assigned to different aspects of differentiated integration.

Table 1 Countries and time

Country Time period

Austria 2004-2020 Belgium 2004-2020 Bulgaria 2007-2020 Croatia 2004-2020 Czechia 2004-2020 Denmark 2004-2020 Estonia 2004-2020 Finland 1994-2020 France 2004-2020 Germany 2004-2020 Greece 2008, 2012, 2017-2020 Hungary 2004-2020 Ireland 1990-2020 Italy 2004-2020 Latvia 1990-2020 Lithuania 2004-2020 Luxembourg 2004-2020 The Netherlands 2004-2020 Poland 2004-2020 Portugal 2004-2020 Romania 2000-2020 Slovakia 2004-2020 Slovenia 1990-2020 Spain 2004-2020 Sweden 2004-2020

The concept of differentiated integration is operationalized in terms of DI models, DI mechanisms, and DI instances. This conceptualization distinguishes between the polity (DI models) and the policy (level). In addition, it distinguishes between two mechanisms through which differentiated integration occurs, respectively corresponding to demand for more or less integration.

At the conceptual level, two different models of differentiated integration are distinguished. The multi-speed EU model implies that differentiation is seen as a temporary deviation from uniform integration. The multi-end model implies that differentiation is seen as a permanent feature of the EU. Differentiation can originate in demand for more as well as in demand for less integration. Demand for more integration leads to DI when the mechanism of “enhanced

(4)

cooperation” is used. Demand for less (or stable) integration leads to DI when the mechanism of “opt-outs” from EU law is used. Finally, the European Union comprises a multitude of instances of differentiated integration. The dataset includes 21 such instances. These fall into four broad categories. Instances of inter-se agreements connote international treaties among EU member states which are formally outside the institutional and legal framework of the EU. External agreements exist between the EU and non-EU states. Moreover, enhanced cooperation has been used with regard to multiple policies3_{. Finally,}

there are multiple policy fields in which at least one EU member state enjoys a formal opt-out.

Following this conceptualization, a list of English keywords was designed (see Table 2). The keywords were translated into the relevant local languages in the member states by country experts (see dataset for country-specific translations).

Table 2 Keywords for differentiated integration

§ differentiated integration

DI models

Multi-speed EU model:

§ two-speed europe / eu § multi-speed europe / eu § coalition of the willing

Multi-end EU model:

§ variable geometry

§ core europe / european core § two-tier europe

§ concentric circles + eu § a la carte + eu

DI

mechanisms § Enhanced co-operation § Opt-out

DI instances Inter-se agreements: § prüm convention § european stability mechanism § fiscal compact § unified patent court § single resolution mechanism External agreements: § eea § customs union + turkey § eastern partnership § euromed Enhanced cooperation: § rome iii § unitary patent § matrimonial property regimes § financial transaction tax § european public prosecutor § (pesco) Opt-out policy fields: § schengen § economic and monetary union § security and defence policy § area of freedom, security, and justice § charter of fundamental rights § social chapter

3 For the purpose of this categorization, Pesco (Permanent Structured Cooperation) is listed as an instance of enhanced cooperation.

(5)

2) General variables

Country_name = Alphabetic country identifier

Special cases Explanation

Czechia_Senate Keyword count from Czech Senate

Czechia_Chamber of Deputies Keyword count from Czech Chamber of Deputies

Portugal I The English expressions for “core Europe” and “opt-out” are used

Portugal II Localized expression for “core Europe” and “opt-out” are used

Slovakia_total Total of keyword counts from plenary sessions and European Affairs committee

Slovakia_Parliament Keyword count from plenary sessions Slovakia_European Affairs

committee

Keyword count from Slovak European Affairs committee

Year = Year when keyword appeared in parliamentary debate

Total = Sum of keyword count4

DI variable-categories

DI models

A_ = Multi-speed EU

B_ = Multi-end EU

DI mechanisms

C_ = Enhanced cooperation

D_ = Opt-out

DI instances

E_ = Enhanced cooperation

F_ = Opt-out policy fields

G_ = Inter se agreements

H_ = External agreements

DI variables

DI models

§

DI = Differentiated integration

§

TSEU = Two-speed EU

§

MSEU = Multi-speed EU

§

COAL = Coalition of the willing

(6)

§

VARIG = Variable geometry

§

CORE = Core Europe / European core

§

TTEU = Two-tier EU

§

CONCI = Concentric circles

§

ALACA = A la carte EU

DI mechanisms

§

ENHCO = Enhanced cooperation

§

OO = Opt-out

DI instances

§

ROME = Rome III

§

UNIP = Unitary patent

§

MATRI = Matrimonial property regimes

§

FTT = Financial transaction tax

§

EPPO = European public prosecutor

§

PESCO = Permanent Structured Cooperation

§

SCHENG = Schengen Area

§

EMU = Economic and Monetary Union

§

SECDEF = Security and defence policy

§

AFSJ = Area of freedom, security, and justice

§

FUNDRI = Charter of Fundamental Rights

§

SOCH = Social Chapter

§

PRM = Prüm convention

§

ESM = European stability mechanism

§

FISC = Fiscal compact

§

UPC = Unified patent court

§

SRM = Single resolution mechanism

§

EEA = European Economic Area

§

CUTU = Customs union + Turkey

§

EASTP = Eastern partnership

(7)

Part B – Governmental positions (expert survey)

1) Introduction

The “DI country positions” dataset provides data on the position of 27 EU member

states on differentiated integration. The country positions are based on “expert

judgements”. To this end, researchers with knowledge about the national political

systems as well as European integration were recruited to conduct a detailed

analysis of governmental documents (Table 3)

5

_{. Subsequently, they were asked to}

fill in an online survey on various aspects of differentiated integration. The covered

time period is 2008 - 2020

6

_{. For each variable, only one score was assigned to the}

entire period.

Table 3 Overview of the document categories 1 Government programmes

2 First speeches + parliamentary debate 3 Council presidency PM speeches + parliamentary debate a. National Parliament b. European Parliament

4 Future of Europe speeches + parliamentary debate a. European Parliament b. Citizen consultation 5 PM European Council Statements 6 Parliamentary debates

The country experts were asked to engage in close readings of document categories

1-5. For category 6, the experts were asked to identify references to DI models and

DI mechanisms in selected key years

7

_{and manually code them as negative, neutral,}

or positive. This approach ensured that the country experts obtained in-depth

knowledge about governmental DI positions. In order to obtain systematic insights

from the country experts, an online survey was administered to the country experts

8

_.

To increase reliability, an internal coder filled in the survey in parallel based on the

InDivEU country reports. The internal coder justified choices with segments from the

5 For a detailled country-by-country overview oft he analyzed documents, please consult the InDivEU country reports at the EUI’s online repository (https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/812) or the InDivEU website (http://indiveu.eui.eu/).

6 Document collection occured in the first half of 2020.

7 These cover 2008, 2012, 2017-2020 for all countries. For some countries, additional years were included. See country reports for details.

8 See here:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd7QxihmXG_NZRuGX76cjZt7MTWDuUI7XfSgQLfK4ih_99CXw/vie wform

(8)

country reports. Subsequently, both sets of answers were shared with the country

experts with an invitation to resolve the remaining conflicts.

2) Survey questions

NAME_COUNTRY = Name of Country

DI_POS_TOTAL = What was the government's overall position on DI?

1 Very negative 2 Negative 3 Neutral 4 Positive 5 Very positive 0 Insufficient data

DI_POS_MS = What position did the government take on DI models? [Multi-speed EU]

1 (very negative) :

5 (very positive) 0 Insufficient data

DI_POS_ME = What position did the government take on DI models? [Multi-end EU]

1 (very negative) :

DI_POS_ENHCO = What position did the government take on DI mechanisms? [Enhanced

cooperation] 1 (very negative) :

DI_POS_OPTOUT = What position did the government take on DI mechanisms? [Opt-outs]

1 (very negative) :

DI_POS_PESCO = What position did the government take on DI instances? [Pesco]

1 (very negative) :

(9)

DI_POS_ROME = What position did the government take on DI instances? [Rome III]

1 (very negative) :

DI_POS_UNIPAT = What position did the government take on DI instances? [Unitary

Patent]

1 (very negative) :

DI_POS_MATRIGHT = What position did the government take on DI instances?

[Matrimonial Property Regimes] 1 (very negative)

:

DI_POS_FTT = What position did the government take on DI instances? [Financial

Transaction Tax] 1 (very negative) :

DI_POST_EPPO = What position did the government take on DI instances? [European

Public Prosecutor] 1 (very negative) :

DI_POS_PRUM = What position did the government take on DI instances? [Prum

Convention] 1 (very negative) :

DI_POS_ESM = What position did the government take on DI instances? [European Stability

Mechanism] 1 (very negative) :

(10)

DI_POS_FISCALCO = What position did the government take on DI instances? [Fiscal Compact] 1 (very negative) : 5 (very positive) 0 Insufficient data

DI_POS_SRM = What position did the government take on DI instances? [Single Resolution

Mechanism] 1 (very negative) :

DI_POS_UNICOURT = What position did the government take on DI instances? [Unified

Patent Court] 1 (very negative) :

DI_CONSIST = Was the government's position on DI consistent across the three levels of DI

models, DI mechanisms, and DI instances? In other words, when the government was critical of DI models, was it also critical of using DI mechanisms with regard to DI instances? 1 - Yes, the government's position was consistent (principled position)

2 - No, the government's position was not consistent (pragmatic position)

DI_ENREJ = Overall, would you characterize the government's position as

1 - a principled endorsement of DI (consistently positive) 2 - a pragmatic endorsement of DI (benefits > costs) 3 - a pragmatic rejection of DI (costs > benefits) 4 - a principled rejection of DI (consistently negative)

DI_CHANGE_MS = How did the assessment of the government change over time?

[Multi-speed EU] 1- Deteriorated strongly 2- Deteriorated slightly 3- Unchanged 4- Improved slightly 5- Improved strongly 1- Insufficient data

DI_CHANGE_ME = How did the assessment of the government change over time?

[Multi-end EU]

1 (Deteriorated strongly) :

(11)

0 (Insufficient data)

DI_CHANGE_ENHCO = How did the assessment of the government change over time?

[Enhanced cooperation] 1 (Deteriorated strongly) :

5 (Improved strongly) 0 (Insufficient data)

DI_CHANGE_OPTOUT = How did the assessment of the government change over time?

[Opt-outs]

1 (Deteriorated strongly) :

5 (Improved strongly) 0 (Insufficient data)

PARTY_IDEO = If the government's position has changed over time, did this change

correspond to a change in the composition of the government? In other words, did party ideology impact DI positions?

1 Yes 2 No

1- Insufficient data

GOV_OPPO = Did the position of a party change depending on whether it was governing or

in opposition? * 1 Yes

2 No

0 Insufficient data

IMPACT_EC_EUEF = How did the government perceive the impact of "enhanced

cooperation" on ... [EU effectiveness] 1 (very negative)

:

IMPACT_EC_EULEG = How did the government perceive the impact of "enhanced

cooperation" on ... [EU legitimacy] 1 (very negative)

:

IMPACT_EC_MSEF = How did the government perceive the impact of "enhanced

cooperation" on ... [MS effectiveness] 1 (very negative)

:

(12)

IMPACT_EC_MSLEG = How did the government perceive the impact of "enhanced cooperation" on ... [MS legitimacy] 1 (very negative) : 5 (very positive) 0 Insufficient data

IMPACT_OO_EUEF = How did the government perceive the impact of "opt-outs" on ... [EU

effectiveness] 1 (very negative) :

IMPACT_OO_EULEG = How did the government perceive the impact of "opt-outs" on ...

[EU legitimacy] 1 (very negative) :

IMPACT_OO_MSEF = How did the government perceive the impact of "opt-outs" on ... [MS

effectiveness] 1 (very negative) :

IMPACT_OO_MSLEG = How did the government perceive the impact of "opt-outs" on ...

[MS legitimacy] 1 (very negative) :

(13)

Part C – Team

9

Katrin Auel

Claudia Badulescu Godfrey Baldacchino Giulia Bonacquisti Marta Bozina Beros Maja Bučar Karlis Bukovskis Fabio Cescon Catherine de Vries Ernesto de León Lisanne de Blok Viktor Emil Madsen

Frederico Ferreira da Silva Wojciech Gagatek

Ana Grdović Gnip

Katarzyna Grzybowska-Walecka Vratislav Havlík Saila Heinikoski Gunilla Herolf Kristína Janková Anna Kyriazi Elitsa Markova Elie Michel Laura Muns Lukas Nagel Aleksandra Palkova Anna Pixer Andres Reiljan Hubert Smekal Stefan Telle Natalia Tellidou Nicos Trimikliniotis Boštjan Udovič Ramūnas Vilpišauskas Inga Vinogradnaitė Elisa Volpi

Differentiated integration and the EU member states : salience and governmental positions

Codebook