@article{vandenBrinkDawsonZglinski, author = {van den Brink, Martijn and Dawson, Mark and Zglinski, Jan}, title = {Revisiting the asymmetry thesis: negative and positive integration in the EU}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2023.2296940}, abstract = {The 'asymmetry thesis', articulated by Fritz Scharpf, holds that EU governance is characterised by an asymmetry between positive and negative integration. The EU has well-developed capacities for negative integration but only limited capacities for positive integration. The present paper challenges the orthodoxy that this thesis has become in EU law and political science scholarship. It argues that the asymmetry thesis no longer accurately depicts European integration, revisiting its key legal and institutional assumptions. Taking the internal market as the most likely case to test the thesis, we show that negative integration has become weaker, positive integration has gained in strength, and both developments have had an impact on the substance of EU law and policymaking, which is promoting non-economic concerns and market-correcting policies to a greater extent than it used to. These shifts, so we contend, could be even more pronounced in other areas of European integration.}, language = {en} } @article{vandenBrinkDawsonZglinski, author = {van den Brink, Martijn and Dawson, Mark and Zglinski, Jan}, title = {Alive and kicking or barely alive? The asymmetry thesis in the twenty-first century EU}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, publisher = {Informa UK Limited}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2025.2527330}, pages = {1 -- 12}, abstract = {This paper focuses on the legal and institutional assumptions of Fritz Scharpf's famous thesis of an asymmetry between positive and negative integration in the EU. Taking issue with a number of arguments forwarded in the lead piece for this debate section, it questions the relevance of the thesis to the governance of the contemporary EU, objecting to (i) the limited falsifiability of the asymmetry thesis as established by the distinction between structure and agency; (ii) the emphasis of the thesis on the weakening influence of negative integration and (iii) the way in which asymmetry ignores the increasing centrality of positive integration to defining the EU's legal order. As the paper concludes, while the asymmetry thesis pioneered inter-disciplinary exploration of how the EU's legal and political order inter-relates, it needs serious re-thinking in the Europe of the 2020s.}, language = {en} }