The Europeanintegration process has been the most successful exercise in the history of our continent. It has been and is confronted with numerous challenges and a series of crises prompting various reactions generally called reforms. It is no
Transformation processes in Central and Eastern Europe and deep economic reforms in China and other emerging countries did not end the variety of economic systems. Various brands of comparative economics have shown this variety in both theory and different countries. An increasingly important form of this variety concerns the process of European integration. Systemic differences within the European Union are the source of difficulties and tensions, of a European conundrum that appears in different forms and ways and that make the sustainability and progress of integration difficult. This article looks at the logic of and proposals by the “New Comparative Economics” and the “Variety of Capitalisms” literature to find an explanation to the problems and difficulties that the European integration is meeting, going beyond the standard technical explanations based on European convergence criteria. It finds that both theories, although important and useful for contributing to solving the European conundrum, do not account sufficiently for the novelty and the complexity of European integration.
The consultative referendum held on June 23, 2013, showed that a majority of British voters are in favour of leaving the EU. Markets reacted and adapted, and politics made the first steps towards a UK outside the EU and an EU without Britain. This paper looks at the expected effects of Brexit in different fields: political and social effects, consequences for production and trade, and financial and fiscal effects. It then presents the institutional process of leaving the EU, stressing its indeterminacy, and considers the first steps undertaken so far. It concludes that the EU negotiation position is weak because of its internal problems and calls for the priority given in reforming the EU.
dynamic panel regression. The conclusions summarize the lessons for Europeanintegration from both the intra-EU mobility literature and our empirical analysis.
Perception of intra-EU mobility in the literature
challenges of Europeanintegration, and in finding the connections between these. Also, she is greatly indebted to the Library of the Corvinus University for providing access to important sources written by and about Kaldor, without which this article could
Scientific observers as well politicians have noted for a long time that European integration is a process led by the elites but supported much less enthusiastically by the public at large. The first part of this paper documents systematically and for the first time how pervasive the split between elites and citizens has become over the last decades; the rejection of the “Constitution for Europe” by clear majorities of the French and Dutch voters in 2005 was only the last and most spectacular event in this regard. The paper proposes two theses which help to explain this split: (1) European integration has brought and still brings many advantages to the powerful elites involved, the political, economic and new “Eurocratic” elites; (2) for the population at large, the gains from integration are much less obvious; significant subsections of the populations in different EU member countries have been affected negatively by integration. These theses are documented by empirical evidence from many different sources: Data about the origins, careers and privileges of European politicians and bureaucrats; historical and contemporary data about the role of economic interests and the successful strategies of economic elites concerning integration; statistical data about the socioeconomic development of the EU and “Euroland” compared to other large advanced countries and macro-regions of the world; and survey data about the perceptions and evaluations of European integration both among the elites and the populations in the different member states.