Membership Without the Ballot? Economic and Institutional Implications of the EU's Emerging Non-Voting Entry Model

Ismail, Issa

doi:10.65326/u7y566750

Membership Without the Ballot? Economic and Institutional Implications of the EU’s Emerging Non-Voting Entry Model

Oct 24, 2025
18 min read

Updated: Jun 18

Authors: Issa Ismail

Affiliation: Swiss International University (SIU)

ORCID iD: 0009-0009-7061-4765

Received 20 June 2025; Revised 29 August 2025; Accepted 30 September 2025; Available online 24 October 2025; Version of Record 24 October 2025.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.65326/u7y566750

Volume 2, December 2025, (10016)

Abstract

A growing debate in European policy circles explores whether the European Union (EU) might admit new member states on a temporary non-voting basis—granting market and funding access while deferring full decision-making rights until internal reforms are completed. This article offers a critical, theory-driven analysis of that proposal’s potential economic and institutional effects on candidate states and on the EU itself. Drawing on Bourdieu’s forms of capital, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism, the paper argues that a non-voting entry tier could accelerate economic integration and signal credibility to investors, yet introduce asymmetric power relations that risk long-term dependency and legitimacy deficits. We construct scenario-based forecasts for candidate states (with special attention to the Western Balkans, Ukraine, and Moldova), model channels for growth and convergence, and identify governance trade-offs for the EU’s multi-level polity. The central finding is conditional: membership-lite can be economically beneficial if and only if it is time-bounded, transparently rule-based, and paired with countervailing representation mechanisms that mitigate “second-class” status. Without these safeguards, the approach risks deepening core–periphery asymmetries and normalizing a tiered Union.

Keywords: EU enlargement; voting rights; candidate states; Bourdieu; world-systems; institutional isomorphism; convergence; legitimacy.

1. Introduction

European enlargement has historically fused economic integration with full and equal membership rights: states that completed accession negotiations entered the Union as political equals, with a seat and a vote in the Council and the European Council. That settled coupling of market access and political voice is now under pressure from two directions. The first is geopolitical urgency. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine returned enlargement to the centre of the EU agenda and reframed it as a security imperative rather than a purely technical convergence exercise (Koval & Vachudova, 2024; Anghel & Džankić, 2023). The second is institutional capacity. A larger and more heterogeneous Union, still governed by unanimity in sensitive domains, faces a recurring tension between widening its membership and preserving its ability to act (Anghel & Jones, 2022; Mesarovich, 2025).

Against this backdrop, policymakers have begun to consider admitting new members on an initial non-voting basis. Under such a model, an acceding state would receive early access to the single market and to EU funding programmes while its formal voting rights in the Council were deferred until agreed institutional reforms and accession benchmarks were met. The intended payoff is twofold: candidate economies obtain the tangible benefits of membership sooner, and existing institutions retain decisional capacity by not immediately adding new veto players. The proposal therefore sits at the intersection of the economics of integration and the politics of institutional design.

This article addresses a single, deceptively simple question: can a “membership without the ballot” model accelerate the economic integration of candidate states—through faster access to markets, funds, and rules—without eroding the EU’s democratic legitimacy and long-term cohesion? The question is not merely policy-relevant; it exposes a conceptual blind spot. Existing scholarship explains how the Union differentiates the scope of integration across policies and member states, and how accession conditionality drives domestic reform, but it has not theorised a membership tier that decouples economic access from political voice inside the Union.

The contribution is threefold. First, the article specifies the design space of a non-voting entry tier and distinguishes it analytically from existing forms of differentiated integration. Second, it develops an integrated framework that combines a political-economy account of integration with three sociological lenses—Bourdieu’s forms of capital, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism—to identify the mechanisms through which deferring the vote reshapes economic outcomes and institutional standing. Third, it derives a set of testable propositions and applies them through structured scenario analysis to three active candidates whose situations vary in security exposure and administrative capacity: the Western Balkans, Ukraine, and Moldova. The central claim is conditional. A time-limited, rule-anchored non-voting tier can produce early economic gains, primarily through credibility and investment effects; but absent clear timelines, representation substitutes, and automatic restoration of full rights, it risks entrenching an internal semi-periphery that weakens equality among members.

2. Conceptual background and the research gap

2.1 Integration, conditionality, and the capacity–equality trade-off

The European project has long oscillated between deepening and widening. Liberal intergovernmentalism explains integration as a sequence of bargains in which governments pursue national preferences and lock in credible commitments (Moravcsik, 1993), while postfunctionalist accounts stress that integration has moved from a permissive elite consensus to a constraining dissensus in which public opinion and identity politics shape what is feasible (Hooghe & Marks, 2009). Enlargement scholarship has shown that the EU’s leverage over candidates operates through an external incentives logic: rule adoption is most effective when the membership reward is credible and the domestic costs of compliance are manageable (Schimmelfennig & Sedelmeier, 2004, 2020). Recent work qualifies this picture, arguing that in the current geopolitical environment incentives, socialisation, and security considerations interact in ways the classic model did not anticipate (Buscaneanu & Li, 2024; Mesarovich, 2025; Koval & Vachudova, 2024). Cutting across these literatures is a structural trade-off between the Union’s capacity to act and the principle that members are equals.

2.2 Differentiated integration and the missing internal membership tier

Differentiated integration (DI) is the established frame for thinking about non-uniform membership. The literature distinguishes the differentiation of policy scope—opt-outs, multi-speed and multi-tier arrangements—from external differentiation that extends parts of the acquis to non-members (Holzinger & Schimmelfennig, 2012; Schimmelfennig, Leuffen & De Vries, 2023). What this body of work theorises is variation in which rules apply to whom and when. It does not theorise variation in political voice for states that are nonetheless full members in every other respect. A non-voting entry tier is precisely such a case: it grants the obligations and many of the benefits of membership while withholding the vote. This is the conceptual gap the article addresses. The existing frameworks predict the consequences of differentiated rules; they say little about the consequences of differentiated voice for the political economy of accession or for the legitimacy of the wider Union.

2.3 Three analytical lenses

To close that gap, the article draws on three complementary lenses. Bourdieu’s account of the forms of capital distinguishes economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital and, crucially, theorises their conversion into one another (Bourdieu, 2018). Accession ordinarily converts domestic reform into symbolic capital (recognised membership), which attracts economic capital (investment and funds) and is reinforced by social capital (networked participation) and cultural capital (administrative professionalisation). A non-voting tier alters these conversion ratios. World-systems theory supplies the second lens: it describes a stratified order of core, semi-periphery, and periphery in which the core sets the rules (Wallerstein, 1974), raising the question of whether a non-voting stage crystallises an internal semi-periphery. Institutional isomorphism supplies the third: organisations in a field converge on legitimate templates through coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), so that a new entry template, once established, may diffuse and become path-dependent. The legitimacy implications are read through the distinction between input, output, and throughput legitimacy (Schmidt, 2013).

3. Research design and analytical approach

The study is theory-building and conceptual-analytical rather than data-generating. Its aim is to specify mechanisms and derive propositions about a policy instrument that has not yet been implemented, and which therefore cannot be assessed with outcome data. The design proceeds in five steps. First, the policy object is defined by reconstructing the design space of a non-voting entry tier from the public debate and from the DI and conditionality literatures, so that the analysis targets a concrete institutional form rather than a slogan. Second, expectations are derived deductively from each of the three lenses set out above, generating mechanism-level claims about how deferring the vote should affect investment, convergence, voice, and legitimacy. Third, these mechanisms are organised into economic and institutional channels and examined for the trade-offs they imply. Fourth, the framework is applied through structured scenario analysis to selected candidate cases. Fifth, the results are consolidated into propositions and into an assessment of the conditions under which the instrument helps or harms.

Case selection follows a relevance and variation logic. The Western Balkans, Ukraine, and Moldova are the candidates for whom a non-voting tier is most likely to be considered, which makes them the most informative cases for assessing the instrument. They also vary on two dimensions that the framework identifies as decisive: security exposure, which is acute for Ukraine, intermediate for Moldova, and comparatively low for the Western Balkans; and administrative and absorption capacity, which differs markedly across the group. This variation allows the analysis to probe whether the instrument’s effects are conditional on context rather than uniform.

For each case the analysis traces three scenarios—optimistic, moderate, and pessimistic—defined by the pace of reform, the quality of funds absorption, and the speed of graduation to full voting rights. Scenarios are an appropriate device here because the object is prospective and the outcome depends on design choices and political contingencies that cannot be point-predicted. The evidence base is the peer-reviewed literature on integration, conditionality, cohesion policy, and the determinants of investment; directional claims about economic effects are anchored in that literature rather than in new estimates, and no numerical forecasts are offered. The scope of the argument is deliberately bounded: it concerns the design and consequences of an internal non-voting tier for candidate economies and for the Union’s institutional balance, and it does not attempt to predict the political likelihood that such a tier will be adopted.

4. The policy design space of a non-voting entry tier

A coherent non-voting tier can be specified along three pillars. The first is access. The new member participates immediately in the single market’s freedoms—goods, services, capital, and, with safeguards, labour—and becomes eligible for cohesion, structural, and thematic funds, subject to absorption capacity and rule-of-law conditionality. The second is obligations and enforcement. The member adopts the acquis on a defined schedule, submits to fiscal and macroeconomic surveillance and to competition and state-aid rules, and participates in EU agencies and committees, but without a final vote during the initial phase. The third is deferred voting rights. Council and European Council voting, including any veto, is restored upon clear, time-bound milestones: demonstrable rule-of-law benchmarks, acquis transposition with enforcement, fiscal anchors, and the completion of agreed EU-level reforms.

Because the defining feature of the tier is a deficit of voice, its credibility depends on three classes of safeguard. Representation substitutes give the entrant full presence, the right to speak, agenda-setting input in working parties, and a recorded-dissent mechanism that triggers review, so that the absence of a vote is partly offset by deliberative weight. Sunset and automaticity clauses impose a hard time limit, with graduation to full rights triggered automatically once pre-published criteria are met, reducing the scope for discretionary delay. Budgetary and legal safeguards ring-fence funding envelopes, allow conditional suspension where governance backslides—building on the Union’s wider toolkit of safeguards against democratic backsliding (Kelemen & Blauberger, 2017)—and codify non-retrogression, so that earned rights cannot be withdrawn except through treaty-specified procedures. These design choices are not cosmetic: the analysis below shows that the instrument’s economic and legitimacy effects turn on whether they are present.

5. Economic channels and propositions

5.1 Credibility and the investment channel

Entry, even without an immediate vote, sends a credibility signal about regulatory predictability and rule-of-law alignment. The empirical literature on the determinants of foreign direct investment finds that the quality of host-country institutions is associated with investment inflows, with regulatory quality particularly salient (Khan et al., 2024). On this reading, early membership should compress perceived country risk and crowd in investment, especially where domestic institutions already meet intermediate thresholds and where accession unlocks fund-co-financed project pipelines (Schimmelfennig & Sedelmeier, 2020). The qualification is that investments most sensitive to the shaping of rules—energy and digital infrastructure, for example—may wait for full voice, because the non-voting phase limits the entrant’s ability to influence the regulation that determines their profitability.

Proposition 1. A non-voting entry tier raises early investment mainly through credibility and regulatory-predictability effects, but its investment dividend is concentrated in tradable and standard-sensitive sectors and is muted in sectors whose returns depend on rule-shaping that the deferred vote constrains.

5.2 Trade, value chains, and technology diffusion

Single-market access expands trade and embeds firms in European value chains, with technology diffusing through supplier development, standards adoption, and skilled-labour mobility. These gains are uneven. Tradable sectors benefit quickly, whereas network-regulated industries depend on harmonised regulation and agency governance—domains in which the lack of a vote slightly weakens the entrant’s bargaining position over the rules that shape profitability. The distributional point matters for the legitimacy argument: the sectors that gain first are not necessarily those most visible to citizens.

5.3 Funds absorption and convergence

Structural and cohesion funds can finance transport, the green transition, digital infrastructure, and human capital. The binding constraint is absorption capacity: procurement quality, project selection, and administrative competence. The evidence on cohesion policy is instructive and sobering. Estimated growth effects are positive but modest and highly heterogeneous across regions, with lagging regions tending to benefit more over the longer run and richer regions capturing short-run gains (Di Caro & Fratesi, 2022). Moreover, the political return on transfers is not automatic; perceived cohesion support shapes citizens’ attachment to the Union unevenly (López-Bazo, 2022). A non-voting phase therefore needs to be paired with capacity-building if transfers are to raise productivity rather than merely increase spending.

Proposition 2. The convergence dividend of a non-voting tier is contingent on absorption capacity rather than on transfer volume; without parallel investment in administrative capacity, funding access produces expenditure without commensurate productivity gains.

5.4 Labour mobility and social effects

Phased labour mobility can relieve domestic unemployment, raise remittances, and upgrade returning workers, but rapid outward mobility can strain health and education systems through skill loss. Circular-migration schemes, recognition of qualifications, and targeted retention measures in critical sectors are the standard correctives. The salience of these effects for the present argument is that they are felt by citizens directly and quickly, and therefore shape the public legitimacy of an arrangement in which the state has accepted obligations before acquiring a vote.

5.5 Macroeconomic stability versus policy autonomy

Membership deepens macroeconomic surveillance and narrows the space for discretionary industrial policy, posing a trade-off between policy credibility and policy autonomy. The non-voting phase sharpens this asymmetry: the entrant assumes constraints before it acquires influence over how those constraints are set. Consultative safeguards and a short, automatic transition are the mechanisms that keep the asymmetry tolerable.

Proposition 3. Because a non-voting tier front-loads constraints and defers influence, its net economic benefit declines as the transition period lengthens, making the credibility of an automatic and short sunset a condition of the instrument’s economic value.

6. Institutional and political effects within the Union

6.1 Capacity to act versus equality of members

The instrument is designed to protect decisional efficiency by not adding new veto players while the Union reforms itself. In legitimacy terms, it trades input legitimacy—participation through the vote—for output legitimacy—the effective delivery of integration’s benefits. Whether this trade is acceptable depends heavily on throughput: the quality, transparency, and accountability of the governance processes that operate in the interim (Schmidt, 2013). A postfunctionalist reading cautions that if publics in either the entrant or the existing members perceive members as no longer “born equal,” the constraining dissensus that already shapes integration may harden (Hooghe & Marks, 2009).

Proposition 4. A non-voting tier substitutes output and throughput legitimacy for input legitimacy; it is sustainable only where strong throughput guarantees—deliberative voice, transparency, and accountable process—compensate for the suspended vote.

6.2 Institutional drift and path dependence

The central institutional risk is path dependence. If the temporary tier becomes informally renewable or contingent on shifting criteria, the Union could drift into durable stratification. Institutional isomorphism explains why: once a non-voting template exists and is seen to work, mimetic and normative pressures encourage its reuse for later cohorts, and the template may be reproduced beyond the conditions that justified it (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). The same logic, however, indicates the remedy. A template that codifies automatic thresholds, independent certification, and depoliticised graduation diffuses as an efficient and bounded pathway rather than as a normalisation of unequal membership.

Proposition 5. The diffusion of a non-voting template is governed by how it codifies transition: templates with automatic, externally certified graduation criteria diffuse as bounded pathways, whereas templates reliant on discretionary renewal diffuse as durable stratification.

6.3 Multi-level interfaces

Regions, cities, and civil society have historically gained direct channels to EU resources and fora. A non-voting tier should not restrict these interfaces. If subnational actors from new members can access research, green, and exchange programmes directly, the temporary loss of central-state voice is partly rebalanced by widened participation at other levels—an application of throughput legitimacy at the subnational scale (Schmidt, 2013).

7. A semi-periphery inside the Union?

World-systems theory warns that core actors control rule-making and that peripheral and semi-peripheral actors are integrated into the core’s market and rule system on terms they do not set (Wallerstein, 1974). A non-voting stage formalises exactly this configuration for a period: the entrant is bound by rules in state-aid, energy, and digital competition that it cannot formally consent to. The danger is policy dependency that outlasts the transition. The theory also points to the conditions for upgrading. Semi-peripheral states can ascend through skills-centred industrial policy, cluster development, and smart specialisation tied to EU programmes, but upgrading is fragile while voice is deferred. Institutionalised deliberative rights and a rapid sunset are therefore not only legitimacy safeguards but conditions for keeping the semi-periphery temporary and ascending rather than durable.

Proposition 6. A non-voting tier reproduces a core–periphery rule-making relationship; its peripheralising effect is temporary only where deliberative rights and a short transition allow the entrant to move from rule-taking to rule-shaping before the arrangement becomes entrenched.

8. Capital conversion under a tiered entry

Reading the instrument through Bourdieu’s forms of capital clarifies what a non-voting tier front-loads and what it defers (Bourdieu, 2018). Economic capital can rise early, as funds, investment, and trade growth respond to the credibility of membership, with the strongest effects in export-oriented manufacturing, IT-enabled services, and infrastructure. Cultural capital also accumulates early, because membership accelerates the professionalisation of public administration, procurement, and the judiciary, which in turn raises the efficiency with which economic capital is deployed. Social and symbolic capital, by contrast, are the casualties of deferral. Social capital—the networked influence built through committee ties and joint drafting in Brussels—accrues slowly without a vote, unless proactive measures such as shadow-rapporteur roles and secondments are designed in. Symbolic capital is ambiguous: the membership label confers recognition, yet partial rights can be read publicly as second-class status, converting recognition into grievance rather than legitimacy.

Proposition 7. A non-voting tier front-loads economic and cultural capital while deferring social and symbolic capital; its long-run success depends on design features—network access and a credible, communicated timeline—that minimise the deferral of social and symbolic capital.

9. Country-sensitive scenario analysis

Applying the framework to the three selected cases shows that the instrument’s effects are conditional on context. For the Western Balkans, where security exposure is comparatively low but governance quality and bilateral disputes are persistent constraints, the decisive variable is the durability of rule-of-law reform; conditionality has historically delivered uneven results in the region (Schimmelfennig & Sedelmeier, 2020; Mesarovich, 2025). For Ukraine, the geopolitical salience of accession is highest and public and elite support across the Union has risen sharply since 2022 (Koval & Vachudova, 2024; Panchuk, 2024; Anghel & Džankić, 2023); the binding constraints are the security context and administrative overload rather than the credibility of the membership reward. For Moldova, intermediate security exposure combines with limited administrative bandwidth, so absorption capacity and resistance to external interference are decisive, consistent with evidence on the conditional operation of EU incentives in the eastern neighbourhood (Buscaneanu & Li, 2024).

Table 1 synthesises the scenarios.

Case	Optimistic	Moderate	Pessimistic
Western Balkans	Rapid acquis transposition and connectivity gains; governance reform stabilises; graduation in roughly 2–4 years.	Uneven absorption and partial convergence; polarisation slows justice reform; graduation slips to about 5–7 years.	Governance backsliding triggers conditionality suspension; non-voting status persists, fuelling Euroscepticism.
Ukraine	Reconstruction finance and market access drive upgrading; reforms and procurement modernisation speed graduation in roughly 3–5 years.	Security context limits capacity; funds flow but bottlenecks persist; investment cautious in strategic sectors; graduation about 5–7 years.	Security shocks and administrative overload delay graduation; prolonged limbo erodes trust and private investment.
Moldova	Connectivity, SME support, and digital-governance reform yield service-sector growth; graduation in roughly 3–4 years.	Limited administrative bandwidth caps absorption; steady but slow progress; graduation about 5–6 years.	Polarisation and external interference stall reform; extended non-voting status saps symbolic legitimacy.

Note: Scenarios are analytical constructs derived from the framework in Sections 5–8 and from the cited literature on conditionality, cohesion policy, and the geopolitics of enlargement. The indicative graduation horizons describe the relative ordering of trajectories under different design and reform assumptions; they are not numerical forecasts.

Two cross-case findings follow. First, the security dimension changes the political feasibility and the urgency of the instrument but not its underlying mechanics; in every case the economic dividend still depends on absorption capacity and on the credibility of a short transition. Second, the pessimistic scenarios share a single failure mode—discretionary, open-ended deferral of the vote—which converts a transitional arrangement into entrenched stratification and turns symbolic recognition into grievance. This convergence across very different cases strengthens the central conditional claim.

10. Discussion: contribution to theory and debates

The analysis contributes to four debates. To the literature on differentiated integration, it identifies and theorises a form that existing typologies do not capture. DI scholarship explains variation in the scope of rules across members and time (Holzinger & Schimmelfennig, 2012; Schimmelfennig, Leuffen & De Vries, 2023); the non-voting tier is instead variation in political voice for states that are otherwise full members. Treating voice rather than rule-scope as the object of differentiation extends the agenda and shows that the welfare and legitimacy consequences of differentiating voice differ systematically from those of differentiating rules.

To the conditionality and external-incentives debate, the analysis qualifies the standard model. The external incentives logic holds that credible membership rewards drive reform (Schimmelfennig & Sedelmeier, 2004, 2020), and recent work shows the logic is embedded in domestic and geopolitical context (Buscaneanu & Li, 2024; Mesarovich, 2025). A non-voting tier changes the reward itself: it advances the material benefits of membership while withholding the political reward of voice. The propositions imply that this re-sequencing can sustain reform momentum only if graduation is automatic and short, because a deferred political reward is a weaker and more contestable incentive than a delivered one.

To the legitimacy debate, the analysis locates the instrument’s viability in the throughput dimension. Where input legitimacy is suspended, output delivery alone is insufficient; the quality, transparency, and accountability of interim governance carry the legitimacy burden (Schmidt, 2013), and the risk of a hardening dissensus is real if equality is seen to be conditional (Hooghe & Marks, 2009). To economic sociology and world-systems analysis, the contribution is to specify the instrument as a managed alteration of capital conversion (Bourdieu, 2018) and as a potential internal semi-periphery (Wallerstein, 1974) whose persistence is a design choice rather than a structural inevitability (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Taken together, the seven propositions describe a single mechanism: the non-voting tier front-loads benefits and defers voice, and every adverse outcome traces to allowing that deferral to become long or discretionary.

11. Limitations and future research

Three limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study is conceptual and prospective: it analyses an instrument that has not been implemented, so its propositions are theoretically derived rather than empirically tested, and the scenario horizons are ordinal rather than predictive. Second, the directional economic claims rest on the existing literature on investment determinants and cohesion-policy effects, whose estimates are heterogeneous and context-dependent (Khan et al., 2024; Di Caro & Fratesi, 2022); transferring them to a novel membership form involves assumptions that future data may revise. Third, the case set is confined to current candidates and does not address how a non-voting tier would interact with internal differentiation among existing members.

These limitations indicate a research agenda. The propositions are formulated to be testable once such a tier is adopted, for example by comparing investment and convergence trajectories across entrants that face shorter versus longer transitions, or by tracing whether automatic graduation criteria reduce the diffusion of discretionary renewal. Survey and elite-interview work could examine whether publics read partial rights as legitimate sequencing or as second-class status, refining the symbolic-capital and throughput-legitimacy claims (Schmidt, 2013; Panchuk, 2024). Comparative analysis of staged-accession arrangements as they are operationalised would allow the diffusion proposition to be evaluated directly.

12. Conclusion

Membership without an immediate vote is a genuine institutional innovation that promises to reconcile geopolitical urgency with the Union’s capacity to act while delivering early economic benefits to candidate states. The analysis shows that this promise is conditional. A non-voting tier front-loads economic and cultural capital and defers social and symbolic capital; it substitutes output and throughput legitimacy for the suspended vote; and it reproduces a core–periphery rule-making relationship whose persistence depends on design. The instrument can help candidate economies if, and only if, it is legally time-limited, transparently benchmarked, automatic in restoring full rights, and equipped with deliberative substitutes for the missing vote. Where those conditions hold, it offers a bounded pathway to a larger and more resilient Union; where they fail, it normalises a tiered membership that erodes the equality on which the Union rests. The contribution of the article is to make that conditional precise and to render it testable.

References

Anghel, V., & Džankić, J. (2023). Wartime EU: Consequences of the Russia–Ukraine war on the enlargement process. Journal of European Integration, 45(3), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2190106
Anghel, V., & Jones, E. (2022). Failing forward in Eastern enlargement: Problem solving through problem making. Journal of European Public Policy, 29(7), 1092–1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1927155
Bourdieu, P. (2018). The forms of capital. In M. Granovetter & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The sociology of economic life (3rd ed., pp. 78–92). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494338-6
Buscaneanu, S., & Li, A. X. (2024). The external incentives model embedded: Evidence from the European Union’s eastern neighbourhood. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 62(3), 760–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13532
Di Caro, P., & Fratesi, U. (2022). One policy, different effects: Estimating the region-specific impacts of EU cohesion policy. Journal of Regional Science, 62(1), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12566
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Holzinger, K., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2012). Differentiated integration in the European Union: Many concepts, sparse theory, few data. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(2), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.641747
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2009). A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000409
Kelemen, R. D., & Blauberger, M. (2017). Introducing the debate: European Union safeguards against member states’ democratic backsliding. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(3), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1229356
Khan, H., Dong, Y., Bibi, R., & Khan, I. (2024). Institutional quality and foreign direct investment: Global evidence. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(3), 10547–10591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01508-1
Koval, N., & Vachudova, M. A. (2024). European Union enlargement and geopolitical power in the face of war. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 62(S1), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13677
López-Bazo, E. (2022). The impact of cohesion policy on regional differences in support for the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 60(5), 1219–1236. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13153
Mesarovich, A. (2025). Beyond external incentives: The European Union, wartime enlargement and the candidate countries in Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 63(S1), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.70018
Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.1993.tb00477.x
Panchuk, D. (2024). The impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on public support for EU enlargement. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(11), 3128–3150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2024.2336120
Schimmelfennig, F., Leuffen, D., & De Vries, C. E. (2023). Differentiated integration in the European Union: Institutional effects, public opinion, and alternative flexibility arrangements. European Union Politics, 24(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221119083
Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (2004). Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176042000248089
Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (2020). The Europeanization of Eastern Europe: The external incentives model revisited. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(6), 814–833. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1617333
Schmidt, V. A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: Concepts for comparative analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16(4), 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500007520