EU3D at 2021 ECPR general conference
EU3D researchers have co-organised a section on differentiated integration at the 2021 ECPR General Conference.
2021 ECPR General Conference
30 August - 3 September 2021
EU3D researcher Chris Lord has co-organised the section 'Differentiated integration in the European Union (S18) together with Sandra Kröger (University of Exeter). In this section, EU3D researchers organise two panels.
EU3D researchers have also organised other panels (see below).
P031 Autonomy, domination and the legitimacy of differentiated integration
Panel chair: Filippa Chatzistavcou (ELIAMEP)
This panel explores the different facets, understandings and perceptions of differentiated integration (DI) and how they relate to the issue of domination or, alternatively, of autonomy. For that purpose, researchers examine under which conditions and in which forms differentiated integration projects can protect or jeopardise MS democracies’ ability to govern, secure legitimacy or provoke discord between EU citizens and national as well as European public authorities and defend or undermine collective interests at both levels. The panel also provides interesting insides on the polarisation of political opinions about the pros and cons of DI schemes reflecting the fundamental EU dilemma of balancing between sovereignism and Europeanism. Panel papers bring diverse theoretical, policy and discursive perspectives on the topic thus shedding light on policy, polity and politics dimensions of DI. On this basis, the panel explores a new path for DI as an intermediate non-regressive solution on how to accommodate equal membership and self-governing within the EU.
Chris Lord (ARENA, EU3D), 'Autonomy or Domination? Two Faces of Differentiated Integration'.
Tomasz Grzegorz Grosse (Natolin European Center), 'Differentiated integration as discursive phenomenon'.
Erik O. Eriksen (ARENA, EU3D), 'Differentiated integration and the problem of the second best'.
Filippa Chatzistavrou, (ELIAMEP, EU3D), 'The status of dominance in the EU system of economic governance: drawing upon the Greek case'.
P149 Executive dominance in a differentiated Europe
Panel chair: John Erik Fossum (ARENA, EU3D)
Democratic governance requires institutions that are capable of making and carrying out decisions as well as arrangements that enable citizens to hold power-holders accountable. Democratic governance thus requires a strong executive presence. There is a slippery slope to executive dominance, which refers to an imbalance in favour of executives. It is well-known that crises and emergency politics, which bring with them the need for rapid and decisive action favour the executive, and the COVID-19 pandemic with its harsh measures and severe incursions into citizens’ rights has driven the point home in a dramatic manner. The purpose of this panel is to take stock of and discuss the current status of executive dominance in a multilevel EU context. We address the issue of executive dominance in relation to regime type: how to conceptualize executive dominance in a segmented political order? This question has direct bearing on differentiation, given that a segmented political order is a distinctly differentiated political order. We address executive dominance in relation to multilevel dynamics, and the relationship between elected and non-elected executive officials and bodies. Further, we discuss executive dominance in relation to various organizational and institutional arrangements that stand out in segmented political orders, namely interstitial bodies. Finally, we discuss executive dominance with reference to foreign and security policy.
Jarle Trondal (ARENA and University of Agder, EU3D), 'Administrative State. Examples from European Integration and Nordic Administrative Cooperation'.
Jozef Batora (Comenius University, EU3D), 'Interstitial organizations and executive dominance in the EU's segmented political order'.
Ingrid Hjertaker (Inland Norway University), 'The ECB and the Commission. Competition, Power Dynamics and Differentiation in EU crisis governance'.
Ingrid Hjertaker and Bent Sofus Tranøy (Inland Norway University, EU3D), 'The ECB: Output legitimacy and dominance as uneasy bedfellows'.
John Erik Fossum (ARENA, EU3D), 'Executive dominance in a segmented political order – what are the defining characteristics?'
Democracy, representation and Future of Europe. Populist and Eurosceptic views on the reforming of the EU
Section: S49 Political Representation in Populist times
Panel chair: Katarzyna Zielinska (Jagiellonian University, EU3D)
The debate on the Future of Europe initiated by the European Commission with the White Paper on the Future of Europe in 2017 was meant to provide a much-needed feedback on the most preferred solutions for the future shape of European Integration. The debate that followed engaged multiple actors and tackled a series of issues primarily related to the set-up of main institutions of the EU. The key element of these debates was also a question of how the EU is envisaged in terms of the relationship between integration and differentiation and under what conditions differentiation is acceptable, institutionally sustainable and legitimate. The debate triggered also populist and Eurosceptic actors’ reactions on national and supranational level who specifically centred the debate on sovereignty and representation within the EU context.
Against this background, this panel’s papers examine the selected populist and Eurosceptic actors’ positions on notions of sovereignty, representation, differentiation and segmentation through their stance on democratic reforms in the European Union and proposals different visions on the future of European integration. Gathered contributions discuss the underlying constitutional-democratic visions of the EU fostered by populist/Eurosceptic actors such as segmented political orders. There is special attention paid to the role of parliaments in these distinctive visions. The discussions on the future of Europe takes place in various arenas, each exemplifying different areas of national and European public sphere(s). However, parliaments (national and European) play a special role in such debates and in mobilizing mass support as they form arenas where M(E)Ps negotiate ideas, opinions, policy proposals and proposals representing interests of their respective (national) constituencies and political parties. They are also growingly an arena where populist claims are presented.
Taru Haapala (Universidad Autònoma de Madrid – Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos del CSIC), 'Political representation, parliamentarism and the “crisis” of democracy in Europe: How the constant crisis in the EU conceptually shapes policy-making'.
Elodie Thevenin (Jagiellonian University, EU3D), 'A Cloud on the Horizon? Right-wing Eurosceptic MEPs on the Future of Europe'.
John Erik Fossum (ARENA, EU3D), 'Outing "the others": Towards populist segmented orders'.
Max Steuer (Comenius University, EU3D), 'Protecting sovereignty, but how? Visegrad Four populist and Eurosceptic narratives on the future of the European project'.
Tiziano Zgaga (LUISS University, EU3D), 'Coherent or incoherent? Italian sovereignist parties in front of supranational crisis management'.