@article{GenschelJachtenfuchsMigliorati, author = {Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Migliorati, Marta}, title = {Differentiated integration as symbolic politics? Constitutional differentiation and policy reintegration in core state powers}, series = {European Union Politics}, journal = {European Union Politics}, doi = {10.1177/14651165221128291}, abstract = {What are the policy consequences of constitutional differentiation in core state powers? We argue that the most important consequence is not necessarily the exclusion of the constitutional outs from the policies of the ins, but their reintegration by different means. The outs often have strong functional and political incentives to re-join the policies they opted out from, and the ins have good reasons to help them back in. We develop a theoretical framework that derives the incentives for reintegration from the costs of a policy exclusion. We use a novel dataset of reintegration opportunities to map trends and patterns of reintegration across policy fields and member states. We analyze selected cases of reintegration to probe the plausibility of our theoretical argument.}, language = {en} } @techreport{JachtenfuchsGenschelMiglioratietal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Genschel, Philipp and Migliorati, Marta and Loschert, Franziska}, title = {Differentiated integration and core state powers: the EU budget and Justice and Home Affairs}, edition = {Working Paper, EUI RSC, 2022/47, Integrating Diversity in the European Union (InDivEU)}, abstract = {This paper studies two areas of Core State Powers (CSP), i.e. the EU budget and Justice and Home Affairs. The two cases have the aim to reconstruct how Differentiated Integration (DI) has developed over time in these two specific domains. While the aim is the same for both cases, the way the cases are structured is substantially different. This is due to various reasons. First, the politics of the EU budget go back to the early days of the EU, while JHA is a post-Maastricht feature. This implies that the budget case study concentrates on a much longer time span. Second, DI in the budget interests several member states, while in JHA it is a phenomenon circumscribed to fewer members. Finally, the politics of the budget are decided through intergovernmental negotiations, while JHA is a rather supranationalised policy that relies a lot on secondary legislation and EU executive bodies such as EU agencies.}, language = {en} } @techreport{JachtenfuchsGenschelMigliorati, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Genschel, Philipp and Migliorati, Marta}, title = {Report on the expanded EUDIFF 1 dataset}, edition = {EUI RSC; 2022/40; Integrating Diversity in the European Union (InDivEU) }, pages = {57}, abstract = {This report provides a general overview of the dataset under construction for WP5, EUDIFF-RES, focusing on differentiated integration in core state powers (CSP) in the European Union (EU). The report explains the rationale behind the data collection and provides an outline of the information gathered so far. The aim of the report is to make the dataset easily accessible to anyone who wishes to utlise it for further research.}, language = {en} } @techreport{JachtenfuchsGenschelMigliorati, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Genschel, Philipp and Migliorati, Marta}, title = {Report on the expansion of the EUDIFF 1 dataset}, edition = {EUI RSC; 2022/38; Integrating Diversity in the European Union (InDivEU) }, pages = {22}, abstract = {The present report makes an overview of the progresses made so far in Work Package 5. At this initial stage, the main aim was to develop a new coding for core state powers in EU legislation. Such coding serves the purpose of expanding EUDIFF1 through new information on core state powers integration. The report is structured as follows: after a brief introduction, Section I presents a tripartite categorization of core state powers modes of integration. Section II tests the plausibility of the proposed categorisations through an empirical analysis that explores primary legislation from 1952 to 2016. Section III discusses the possibility of a more fine-grained distinction.}, language = {en} } @techreport{JachtenfuchsGenschelMigliorati, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Genschel, Philipp and Migliorati, Marta}, title = {Report on patterns of variation in DI across areas of core state power and instruments of integration}, edition = {Working Paper, EUI RSC, 2022/39, Integrating Diversity in the European Union (InDivEU) }, pages = {22}, abstract = {The paper summarises different patterns of differentiation and reintegration in core state powers during the post-Maastricht period, based on the EUDIFF-RES dataset. Moreover, it offers a theoretical framework able to explain the observed variation. The framework is further tested by means of short empirical illustrations taken from different policy areas. Overall, the EUDIFF-RES dataset substantially contributes to our understanding of CSP differentiated integration by revealing that the behaviour of states vis-a-vis core state powers varies greatly according to the kind of resource, as well as the costs and opportunities attached to it.}, language = {en} } @article{GenschelJachtenfuchs, author = {Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {The security state in Europe: regulatory or positive?}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2023.2174580}, pages = {1447 -- 1457}, abstract = {We challenge Kruck and Weiss' argument about the regulatory security state on two counts. First, we contest the notion that the regulatory state is a viable alternative to the positive security state. While regulation and epistemic authority are increasingly important means of security provision, they remain critically dependent power resources and political authority that only the positive state provides. The regulatory security state is premised on the positive state and unviable without it. Second, the rise of the regulatory security state over the past three decades reflects highly specific historical conditions rather than a general trend. These conditions include unusually low geopolitical tensions in Europe and the strong regulatory bias of EU integration. Concepts matter: The wider the notion of security, the more relevant the regulatory security state becomes. It is an important reality but the war in Ukraine reminds us of the enduring centrality of the positive state.}, language = {en} } @article{FlonkJachtenfuchsObendiek, author = {Flonk, Dani{\"e}lle and Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Obendiek, Anke}, title = {Controlling internet content in the EU: towards digital sovereignty}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {31}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {8}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2024.2309179}, pages = {2316 -- 2342}, abstract = {We analyse the rhetoric and reality of EU digital sovereignty by looking at content control. The control of online content is central to sovereignty because it relates to fundamental freedoms and democratic competition. Our main data source is the unique International Organizations in Global Internet Governance (IO-GIG) dataset which contains internet policy output documents across international institutions and issue areas between 1995 and 2021. By assessing policy output, we show structural trends in content control output in volume, bindingness, and orientation. By analysing policy discourse, we show the evolution of frames on content control over time. We find evidence for a comprehensive but still ongoing trend towards digital sovereignty in policy output and a shift from prioritising free access to the public order in discourse.}, language = {en} } @article{GenschelJachtenfuchsMigliorati, author = {Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Migliorati, Marta}, title = {Nur Symbolpolitik? Differenzierung und Reintegration staatlicher Kerngewalten}, series = {integration}, volume = {46}, journal = {integration}, number = {2}, doi = {10.5771/0720-5120-2023-2-146}, pages = {146 -- 161}, abstract = {Constitutional differentiation is often assumed to match perfectly with reality. We argue, however, that this is often not the case in core state powers. Constitutional differentiation often does not lead to the exclusion of the non-integrated member states ("outs") from the policies of the integrated member states ("ins") but to their reintegration by different means. We present a cost-benefit-model which argues that both "outs" and "ins" often have strong functional and political incentives to seek reintegration after an earlier decision for differentiation because the costs of exclusion are too high. We use a novel dataset of reintegration opportunities to map trends and patterns of reintegration across policy fields, reintegration instruments and member states in core state powers. We conclude by arguing that reintegration is a frequent but fragile phenomenon through which "ins" and "outs" cope with the costs of exclusion.}, language = {de} }