TIGAU MIHAELA

MCAE

Reaction paper

I have chosen this topic for my reaction paper because I consider that the two concepts of
deepening and widening in the context of European integration have been significantly studied
by academics and, for me, it has seemed very interesting the observation of the relation between
the two concepts as this theme has been already implied in my curricula during the faculty.
The article in cause has been written by Sarah Hobolt (42) who has dedicated her
knowledge in the filed of politics to the job of professor in the Department of Government at
London School of Economics and Political Science and, at the same time being the Sutherland
Chair in European Institutions according to the Department of Government of London School of
Economics and Political Science. Moreover, she also had posts at other important universities as
University of Oxford and University of Michigan. It seems that her expertise in the study of
elections, referendums, public opinion and European studies, made her to be the Vice Chair of
the European Election Studies, which is an EU-wide project aimed to study voters, parties,
elections, and the media in European Parliament elections[ CITATION Sar19 \l 1048 ] . Furthermore,
she is the Principle Investigator of the ERC- funded project EUDEMOS: Constrained
Democracy: Citizens’ response to limited political choice in the European Union[ CITATION
Sar19 \l 1048 ].

Within its work, I consider worth to mention book like “ Blaming Europe? Responsibility
without Accountability in the EU” and “ Democratic Politics in a European Union Under Stress”
both of which have been conducted within the Oxford University, while her work in the field of
analyzing elections and referendums made her won the Best Book prize by the European Union
Studies Association, event happened in 2010 , for the book called :” Europe in question:
Referendums on European Integration”[ CITATION Sar19 \l 1048 ].
This article has been published in the “Journal of European Public Policy”, in the volume
21, number 5 from 2014 and it is called “Ever closer or ever wider? Public attitudes towards
further enlargement and integration in the European Union”, being a detailed presentation of a
research study regarding the relation between the phenomena of deepening and widening in the
enlargement process based on the opinions of the European citizens [ CITATION Sar14 \l 1048 ].

The main idea of the article represents indeed the starting point of the research, namely
the fact that there are some specific factors which made people to support one process, or other
( deepening or widening) or both, at the same time having been demonstrated the fact that the
two concepts are not complementary but indeed in opposition[ CITATION Sar14 \l 1048 ].
Moreover, according to Hobolt, the main cause of the less integration phenomena has been the
eurozone crisis as during that period some states have to pay more in order to support the more
affected ones from the crisis. This resulted in the fact that creditor states and core eurozone states
have started to be more in favor of a deeper integration rather than a wider one, as they had to
TIGAU MIHAELA
MCAE

pay more money for the new commers in the Union, which in my opinion would be the logical
outcome since in the first instance each state is trying to achieve its personal goal and interest
first.
In order to understand their points of view, the author gives us some useful
interpretations concerning the two concepts. Thus, she defined the concept of widening as being
the integration that takes place only in geographically terms, namely referring only to the action
of embracing more states so that the Union could become larger and larger, while the concept of
deepening have been defined as a more meaningful integration process, because of the fact that
by the process of deepening the Union would be provided more powers and the member states
would be more submitted to the Union’s decisions[ CITATION Sar14 \l 1048 ]. Thus, the process of
deepening would create a higher level of cooperation between the members of E.U. and a more
homogenous union.
In addition, within her first steps in conducting this research was to evaluate the support
of citizens for the integration – enlargement process and for this reason she has borrowed
information from other works. One worth to mention work is the one of Jones and van der Bijl
who have demonstrated that a high influence in support for integration has have the level of
transactions between existing members states and special candidates[ CITATION Sar14 \l 1048 ].
This approach has been translated as being the utilitarian approach, namely an economic cost-
benefit analysis. Another study mentioned in the article was the one of McLaren who found out
that the level of support is determinate by a combination of economic and symbolic threats like a
potential economic crisis[ CITATION Sar14 \l 1048 ]. This conclusion resulted in a new approach to
the support of integration, namely the affective approach.
Another important aspect represents the hypotheses that have been shaped for
demonstration. The first one is that , based on literature , individuals that are more attached to
Europe will support more the further deepening and widening, while the second was shaped in
terms of individual interest as “ Individuals with grater human capital are more supportive of
both widening and deepening integration”[ CITATION Sar14 \l 1048 ]. Furthermore, even the
position of each member state in the Union can affect its position so that “ People in the
eurozone countries are more supportive for deepening and less supportive for widening
compared with people in non-eurozone states”[ CITATION Sar14 \l 1048 ]. We also have the same
case for people in the net- contributors states, namely those in these states are in favor for the
deepening integration only. The last hypotheses have been contoured by taking into
consideration the most common fears of the citizens, pointing to fear of paying more, fear of an
economic crisis or fear of losing power within the Union, so that people constrained by all these
fears will be less supportive for widening integration[ CITATION Sar14 \l 1048 ].

In the conclusions category it has been proven, using data from Eurobarometer that all
the hypotheses have been demonstrated and true, while the author opted for a more structural
approach in which she clarifies the conclusions by making some categories. There have been
TIGAU MIHAELA
MCAE

made four categories. The first one is the “euro opt-outs “which are the ones voluntarily outside
eurozone (UK, DEN, SWED) and they are the least supportive for deepening
integration[ CITATION Sar14 \l 1048 ]. Then, there are the “euro outsiders’ which are those outside
of eurozone but with potential to join, and these people are most in favor for further enlargement
while the euro debtor states are those net-recipients states and they support more the widening
enlargement[ CITATION Sar14 \l 1048 ] . The last category is that of euro creditor states, those who
are financial supporters and indeed they are in favor only for deepening integration[ CITATION
Sar14 \l 1048 ].

The relation between deepening and widening has been debated for long and other
important studies have been conducted years before the one mentioned in this paper. For
example, Christina Schneider discussed about the two notions in the context of European
integration, by using the two concepts in order to provide clear definitions regarding the
functionalist theory and new-functionalist theory[ CITATION Chr09 \l 1048 ]. Moreover, R. Daniel
Kelemen together with Anand Menon and Jonathan Slapin have tackled this theme of deepening
and widening and have tried to find out the relation between the two concepts, if they are
complementary or if one results from the other or even if one constraint the other. The basic
question was if “widening impedes deepening” or if “ widening facilitates deepening” and using
comparative data and historical events they came up to the conclusion that actually widening is “
not a necessary impediment to deepening in political organizations” even if there are cases in
which widening can block deepening such as when “ the enlargement state is a preference
outlier with regard to policy areas in which further deepening requires consensus decision
making by member governments”[ CITATION RDa11 \l 1048 ] . Regarding the final conclusion that
widening can be a facilitator for deepening the authors gave us the means in order to do this,
namely they said that “ by generating legislative gridlock that in turn increases the room for
maneuver of supranational administrative and judicial actors who exploit their discretion to
pursue their preferences for deeper integration”[ CITATION RDa11 \l 1048 ].

Overall, I strongly believe that in fact deepening could be facilitated by widening as there
would be more opinions and values that the Union can embraced as the membership would be
more increased. Moreover, by incorporating more states, we would have a more homogenous
Union, even a more powerful one at the international level while the principle values of E.U.,
solidarity and democracy, would be more influent on the international scene by providing
development aid to the new commers in the Union. I also consider, that right now there is no
prospects for the Union to engage in such a widening process since there are a lot of crisis all
over the member states, while the new trend of Euroscepticism has become more and more
present once with the withdrawal of the Union. Thus, another reason that came along with my
belief that there won’t be any widening process sooner is the fact that Turkey isn’t yet prepared
to join the Union as its process of integration has started some decades ago, it seems that neither
Turkey, nor E.U. is ready for embracing another state in its membership.
TIGAU MIHAELA
MCAE

I consider that this research could be a very useful tool in further researches as it provides
the needed concepts and starting points for conducting a new research. We have definitions, we
have proven hypotheses and very structured conclusions in the shape of classifications. In my
opinion one negative element of the research could be the fact that there is no unpredictable
element, namely the grounds of the hypotheses were very logical and easily to state conclusions
from them. In addition, the article provides clear notions for having a clear understanding upon
the concepts of widening and deepening integration and their relation which seems to be
different compared to the studies from years before.

Hobolt, S. B. (2014). Ever closer or ever wider? Public attitudestowards further enlargement and
integration in the European Union. Journal of EuropeanPublic Policy, 664-680.

Hobolt, S. B. (2019, 05 24). Sara Binzer Hobolt. Preluat de pe www.hobolt.com: www.hobolt.com

R. Daniel Kelemen; Anand Menon; Jonathan Slapin. (2011). Wider and Deeper? Enlargement and
Integration in the European Union. American Political Science Association. Seatle.

Scheiner, C. (2009). Widening and Deepening: two pillars of EU integration. În C. Scheiner, Conflict,
nogotiation and European Union enlargement (pg. 33-37). Cambridge University Press.