"By comparing US and European efforts at market integration, this article questions the commonly held notion that Europe's market integration can continue without undermining its nation-based models of social protection. Three recent ECJ decisions (Viking, Laval and Rüffert) seem to confirm Scharpf's (2002) assertion that the EU suffers from constitutional asymmetry. By contrasting these developments with the earlier integration of US markets – where a rough constitutional symmetry can be said to exist – the article concludes that constitutional symmetry, in itself, is probably insufficient to protect the sort of corporatist arrangements that undergird northern European social models."

Support: Paper