SISP Conference 2024

Scholars have described the period that began in the second half of 2008 – when the economic and financial crisis hit the EU – as the “polycrisis” or “permacrisis” of the Union. Starting with the Eurocrisis, moving on with the migration and refugee crisis, the long-process of withdrawal of the UK leading to Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the new conflicts in its neighbourhood, the EU has been confronted with a dramatic string of unprecedented events. While the EU has managed to navigate through the storm, the crises have fuelled support for anti-EU and populist parties, contesting the EU and its policies sometimes from the highest executive office in some Member states.
The ongoing five-year cycle, initiated in 2019, represents a crucial juncture for the European Union, characterized notably by the absence of an absolute majority between the center-right (embodied by the European People’s Party) and the center-left (the Socialists and Democrats) in the European Parliament. As this cycle approaches its culmination, the EU is gearing up for the renewal of its Parliament in June 2024 and the subsequent selection of a new President of the Commission. The upcoming elections to appoint the next European Parliament, along with nine other parliamentary elections across European countries, are anticipated to witness the relative decline of mainstream parties and the emergence of various challengers in 2024. Moreover, the ongoing conflicts on the EU's doorstep and the 2024 US presidential elections are expected to exert significant influence on the trajectory of the European project. It is worth noting that these elections are likely to be influenced by the threat of online disinformation and the increasing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in shaping political discourse and electoral outcomes.
Despite these serious, we could call them ‘quasi-existential’ setbacks, it has to be, however, stressed that the mistakes that had been made in the aftermath of the sovereign debt crisis – for example the rushed endorsement of the doctrine dubbed “expansive austerity” – and which have done so much harm by alienating voters and governments, thereby fundamentally shaking the foundations of the European project of shared prosperity, have not been fortunately repeated. Above and beyond the ‘Hamiltonian moment’ represented by the relatively solidaristic answer to the challenges of the pandemic or the recently approved gas price cap in response to Russian threats, a shift away from economic towards social Europe, that had started under the aegis of the Juncker Commission, has continued unabated under the Von der Leyen Presidency.
If a list of the market-correcting policies supplanting market-making ones is beyond the scope of this summary, as they range from ecological measures such as the European Green Deal to regulatory breakthroughs such as the Digital Markets Act, just a brief look at the social policy domain indicates that a number of initiatives have been pushed forward or are being debated that would have been inconceivable just five years earlier. Planned or definitive legislative acts, such as the Minimum Wage Directive, the Platform Work Directive, the setup of Individual Learning Accounts represent paradigmatic changes in the conception of what a European social model signifies and may influence its design and operation for decades to come. It is in the light of these contrasting developments that the ninth legislative period of the European Parliament needs to be assed.
___
The main goal of this Section is that of analysing, interpreting and explaining, from a variety of angles and using different methodologies, the challenges impacting upon and the ensuing changes on the EU political system, both at the supranational level and in a multi-level governance perspective. The analytical focus is placed on the EU institutions, actors and public policies. In an illustrative fashion, the Section welcomes contributions exploring:
- the validity of theories of EU integration to explain the more recent changes in the EU political system;
- the assessment of the Europeanisation of the member states, particularly but not only Italy;
- intra-institutional dynamics, such as the reforms adopted by the European Parliament to tackle corruption and limit foreign interferences;
- inter-institutional dynamics and power-relationships between the European Council, the Council of the EU, the Commission and the EP;
- the run-up to the 2024 EP elections and the reform of the electoral law, the Spitzenkandidaten process and policies to protect the integrity of elections;
- the results and consequences of the 2024 EP elections;
- the narratives about the EU in the media and in the public sphere;
- the current fractures between economic and social Europe and between market-making and market-correcting measures;
- the latest developments in the most salient policy fields, such as the labour market, social security and protection, energy capacity, environmental preservation, digitalization and its regulation (the EU Chips Act; the Data Act /Data Governance Act, the eIDAS Regulation, the eIDs, etc.);
- the implementation of the National Resilience and Recovery Plans;
- the tensions between the green transition and the need for energy security;
- the stepping up of security and defence coordination.
- the EU enlargement agenda (Eastern and Southeastern perspectives).

 

There is a growing recognition that some of the neoliberal orthodoxies of the mid-1980s to early 2000s have recently come under pressure. Under the imperatives of the transition to a green economy and renewed geopolitical concerns brought to the surface by Russia's attack on Ukraine, a growing number of countries have resorted to unprecedented public intervention in the economy to support the ecological transition, protect domestic economies from aggressive global players, and restructure domestic production. Nowhere are these changes more evident than in the European Union (EU). Since the aftermath of the COVID crisis, the EU has introduced a wide range of interventionist initiatives, from industrial to climate to monetary policy. These interventions are designed to steer markets toward goals such as increased competitiveness, resilience, and even strategic autonomy.
The purpose of this panel is to take stock of recent changes in EU economic governance and its broad approach to liberal and open markets. In particular, the panel welcomes proposals on the following topics, among others: (1) challenges and opportunities for European institutions and European economic governance; (2) the political foundations of the changing role of the state and public intervention in the EU; (3) cooperation and conflict among EU member states in a changing geo-economic context; (4) European climate and industrial policy, the single market, and the future of European integration; (5) the implications of the European geo-economic transition for economic globalization.
Submissions from early career researchers and women are particularly welcome. We also encourage submissions that provide either empirically grounded theorizing or new empirical analysis using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods.

 

There is a growing recognition that some of the neoliberal orthodoxies of the mid-1980s to early 2000s have recently come under pressure. Under the imperatives of the transition to a green economy and renewed geopolitical concerns brought to the surface by Russia's attack on Ukraine, a growing number of countries have resorted to unprecedented public intervention in the economy to support the ecological transition, protect domestic economies from aggressive global players, and restructure domestic production. Nowhere are these changes more evident than in the European Union (EU). Since the aftermath of the COVID crisis, the EU has introduced a wide range of interventionist initiatives, from industrial to climate to monetary policy. These interventions are designed to steer markets toward goals such as increased competitiveness, resilience, and even strategic autonomy.
The purpose of this panel is to take stock of recent changes in EU economic governance and its broad approach to liberal and open markets. In particular, the panel welcomes proposals on the following topics, among others: (1) challenges and opportunities for European institutions and European economic governance; (2) the political foundations of the changing role of the state and public intervention in the EU; (3) cooperation and conflict among EU member states in a changing geo-economic context; (4) European climate and industrial policy, the single market, and the future of European integration; (5) the implications of the European geo-economic transition for economic globalization.
Submissions from early career researchers and women are particularly welcome. We also encourage submissions that provide either empirically grounded theorizing or new empirical analysis using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods.

 

This panel welcomes contributions focusing on any aspect where intra and inter-institutional politics in the EU play a key role. The panel focuses on internal dynamics – e.g., voting coalitions in the Council and the EP, the internal organisation of the Commission – and inter-institutional aspects – e.g., the budgetary and legislative processes, agenda-setting dynamics, office appointments and oversight dynamics. It is particularly interested in theoretical and empirical papers focusing on the implications of the 2024 EP elections on the EU institutions, such as the appointment of the new European Commission, the allocation of key offices in the European Parliament, the (re)configuration of the political groups and the role of the Europarties. While the key focus is on institutional politics at the EU level, the panel is also open towards contributions looking at the relationships between Member States and Brussels. The panel does not endorse any specific methodological approach: quantitative analyses, small-n comparisons and case studies are all welcome. The panel aims to include theoretically driven contributions, assessing theoretical arguments and hypotheses, rather than descriptive or normative papers.

 

In 2019 the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, declared its ambitions to lead a 'geopolitical Commission', and hence to turn the EU into a ‘geopolitical’ actor. Against the backdrop of growing tensions between the United States and China, such an ambition has been at the centre of the European debates in the last five years. Indeed, the von der Leyen’ allegedly geopolitical EU has been put to test by multiple and diverse crises. Among these, there are the Covid-19 pandemic, the Russian war against Ukraine, the Israeli war against Hamans and the ensuing tensions in the Middle East. As the European Parliament's elections are taking place in spring 2024 and a new Commission is expected to take over, the panel aims to take stock of EU foreign policy during the 2019-2024 EU institutional cycle.
In this context, we welcome contributions examining the role of EU actors and their practices in foreign policy not only within the EU institutional context but also in EU interactions with other international actors. At the same time, we welcome contributions looking at the evolution of EU foreign policy from the perspective of non-European actors.

 

In 2019 the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, declared its ambitions to lead a 'geopolitical Commission', and hence to turn the EU into a ‘geopolitical’ actor. Against the backdrop of growing tensions between the United States and China, such an ambition has been at the centre of the European debates in the last five years. Indeed, the von der Leyen’ allegedly geopolitical EU has been put to test by multiple and diverse crises. Among these, there are the Covid-19 pandemic, the Russian war against Ukraine, the Israeli war against Hamans and the ensuing tensions in the Middle East. As the European Parliament's elections are taking place in spring 2024 and a new Commission is expected to take over, the panel aims to take stock of EU foreign policy during the 2019-2024 EU institutional cycle.
In this context, we welcome contributions examining the role of EU actors and their practices in foreign policy not only within the EU institutional context but also in EU interactions with other international actors. At the same time, we welcome contributions looking at the evolution of EU foreign policy from the perspective of non-European actors.

 

Between 2022 and early 2024, the Mediterranean region has experienced a new increase in irregular mobility to Italy and the European Union (EU) at large. The bilateral agreements drafted by Italy with Libya and Albania, as well as the EU-wide agreements with Turkey, Tunisia and most recently Egypt suggest that the externalization of border enforcement has become the cornerstone of EU migration governance across the Mediterranean. The content, effectiveness, and implications of these externalization strategies, however, vary considerably. The European Council and Parliament’s recent agreement on a new Pact on Migration and Asylum after years of negotiation is also set to reshape the governance of mobility, calling for a reappraisal of existing institutional frameworks and policy arrangements.
This panel will analyse change and continuity in European migration governance, focusing on the interplay between European internal dynamics and geopolitical factors like growing regional and global instability. By utilizing interdisciplinary approaches and concepts including (but not limited to) ethnography, visual content analysis, infrapolitics, and policy diffusion, our panel aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of border enforcement across the Mediterranean.
To that end, we welcome papers examining the constellations of actors, institutions, practices, and norms underpinning European migration governance. Key themes to be addressed encompass the discourses and practices underlying the securitization of migration, policy diffusion, issue-linkages, and reverse conditionality in negotiations within the EU as well as between the EU and third parties. Relatedly, the panel discussion will examine the implications of current migration governance strategies like externalization agreements for human rights and regional stability, as well as potential avenues for enhancing cooperation and addressing gaps in the frameworks protecting the fundamental rights of people on the move

 

The round table aims to analyse the new political and institutional balances in the European Union following the elections for the European Parliament, held between 6 and 9 June 2024. The tenth European Parliament elected by the citizens of the Union plays a key role as co-legislator, in the approval of the EU budget and in the process of forming the new European Commission. The Roundtable seeks to provide a first assessment of the impact of the elections on the new political cycle in the EU. Who are the winners and losers of these European elections? What role did the Europarties play? What will be the impact of the new balances of power on the political agenda of the European Commission for the next five years? Did the turbulent geopolitical environment affect the outcome of the elections? Experts in European Union politics will try to provide answers and food for thought on the results of the elections for the European Parliament and their implications for the EU and its Member States, also starting from some recent publications on the subject.

Participants:
Thomas Christiansen (LUISS, Rome)
Nicoletta Pirozzi (IAI)
Simona Piattoni (University of Trento)
Edoardo Bressanelli (Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa)

 

The upcoming European elections in June 2024 represent yet another electoral cycle, following those of 2009, 2014, and 2019, occurring within the historical phase of the European integration process that began with the global economic crisis, which many scholars have dubbed the "polycrisis." The Eurozone crisis, the refugee crisis, the protracted departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union (EU), the Covid-19 pandemic, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine with the ensuing energy and cost of living crisis have posed serious threats to the very existence of the EU polity. However, unlike previous European elections, those of 2024 come after an electoral cycle (2019-2024) in which the Commission, under Von der Leyen's presidency, responded to the pandemic crisis, climate change, and energy crisis with policies involving novel forms of risk-sharing and solidarity, such as Next Generation EU (NGEU), the Green New Deal, and joint procurement of vaccines against the Covid-19 pandemic. Arguably, these policies can be considered a departure from the strict conditionality and austerity policies implemented during the Eurozone crisis and the general lack of coordination among European political leaders to address massive inflows of migrants towards Europe during the refugee crisis of 2015. Nevertheless, in spite of these solidaristic political responses to recent crises, the electoral consent for Eurosceptic parties has been growing not only in Northern Europe, such as in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, but also in Southern European countries, like Italy, Portugal, and Spain, which are among the main recipients of the intra-EU solidarity mechanisms recently implemented. To date, hard Euroscepticism has remained rather marginal and confined across the extreme right and extreme left but forecast and the current political success of extreme right and illiberal democratic leaders across EU member states provide an original case study towards 2024.The upcoming electoral round offer an opportunity for testing the main theories explaining voter choices in European elections and understanding whether these are still perceived as "second-order elections" or if instead, citizens' electoral behaviour is also motivated by the proximity between their positions and those of parties on European issues. The 2024 European elections also allow studying how recent political choices made by EU institutions have been judged by voters and whether these have played a role in influencing their voting preferences. The analysis of the electoral campaign and the issues that will emerge as salient in different countries, as well as the consequences of the election results on party alliances both nationally and at the European level, are certainly other aspects of considerable interest. We are keen to receive papers focusing on Euroscepticism at the party, public or civil society levels, the role of Eurosceptic Members of the European Parliament and the changing EP and also Pro-EU movements, parties and/or campaigns. We are seeking papers that analyse both the demand and supply sides of the electoral competition, as well as the combination of both. We are particularly interested in comparative studies but will also consider works that focus on single countries.

 

Historically, the European Union (EU) jurisdiction in healthcare has always been very limited. The article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU is indeed clear about the fact that healthcare remains under the responsibility of member states, while EU action may at best 'complement' their legislation. Notwithstanding, years of research on EU policy-making in healthcare has provided much more contrasted insights : the EU's and member states' competences have become far more entangled than expected by the treaties (Natali 2004; Greer 2011; Maino and Neri 2011; Giulio de Belvis et al. 2012).
Most of the time, the EU influence on healthcare policies in rather indirect, as it is linked to the implementation of the Single Market: harmonization of legislation and procedures for medicines and medical devices, regulation of products with a high impact on healthcare (tobacco, alcohol), budget harmonization through the European semester (Mäkelä and Osterberg 2009; Zeitlin and Vanhercke 2018; Perna 2018; Greer and Brooks 2021). In addition, the EU has developed numerous soft guidelines and initiatives on many topics related to healthcare: rare diseases, health and environment, healthy ageing, cancer prevention, digital health… (Greer 2011; Nalin et al. 2019; Tuzii 2017). More recently, the COVID-19 crisis highlighted the need for a deeper cooperation at the EU level in case of pandemics, as citizens realized the extent to which EU direct intervention possibilities were limited (Brooks and Geyer 2020). In the aftermath of this crisis, the European Commission wrote a proposal for the creation of a European Health Data Space, a major piece of legislation which is currently negotiated between the EU Parliament and the Council.
In light of these recent developments, this panel aims to gather papers that conceptualize power in healthcare as a complex phenomenon responding to strong domestic imperatives, but also European ones. As it becomes increasingly difficult to consider healthcare as the sole prerogative of member states, political scientists need to develop new conceptual tools to describe EU influence on such a politicized sector. In this view, this panel will welcome papers that address the following topics:
• The mechanisms by which the EU has become an influent actor of health policies at the domestic level (Europeanization). In particular, we would like to receive papers that compare Europeanization mechanisms between healthcare and other sectors, and try to renew the classic conceptualization of Europeanization (Radaelli 2003; Börzel and Risse 2003; Graziano et al. 2011)
• Papers exploring power shifts dynamics between the EU and member states in healthcare. As healthcare policies belong to the traditional set of core state powers, papers that address the relation between the EU’s ever-increasing powers in health and issues of sovereignty are particularly welcome.
• The effects of the COVID-19 crisis on EU health-related policies and the way this crisis created changes in power relations between member states and the EU. In particular, we would like papers to address the question of the magnitude of change related to the COVID-19 crisis (Natali et al. 2023).
• The adoption of the regulation on the European Health Data Space constitutes a major step forward for EU integration in healthcare. Through digitalization, the EU managed to strengthen its political influence far beyond the limits imposed by the treaties. We therefore invite participants to submit papers about the link between digitalization (Amoretti and Musella 2011), healthcare, and the European Union.

Bibliography

Amoretti, Francesco, and Fortunato Musella (2011). ‘Toward the European administrative space: the role of e-government policy’, European Political Science Review, 3:1, 35–51.
Börzel, Tanja, and Thomas Risse (2003). ‘Conceptualizing the domestic impact of Europe’, in Kevin Featherstone and Claudio M. Radaelli (eds.), The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 57–80.
Brooks, Eleanor, and Robert Geyer (2020). ‘The development of EU health policy and the Covid-19 pandemic: trends and implications’, Journal of European Integration, 42:8, 1057–1076.
Giulio de Belvis, Antonio et al. (2012). ‘The financial crisis in Italy: Implications for the healthcare sector’, Health Policy, 106:1, 10–16.
Graziano, Paolo R., Sophie Jacquot, and Bruno Palier, eds. (2011). The EU and the Domestic Politics of Welfare State Reforms: Europa, Europae. 1st ed. Houndmills, Basingstoke Hampshire?; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Greer, Scott L. (2011). ‘The weakness of strong policies and the strength of weak policies: Law, experimentalist governance, and supporting coalitions in European Union health care policy’, Regulation & Governance, 5:2, 187–203.
Greer, Scott L., and Eleanor Brooks (2021). ‘Termites of Solidarity in the House of Austerity: Undermining Fiscal Governance in the European Union’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 46:1, 71–92.
Maino, Franca, and Stefano Neri (2011). ‘Explaining Welfare Reforms in Italy between Economy and Politics: External Constraints and Endogenous Dynamics*’, Social Policy & Administration, 45:4, 445–464.
Mäkelä, Pia, and Esa Osterberg (2009). ‘Weakening of one more alcohol control pillar: a review of the effects of the alcohol tax cuts in Finland in 2004’, Addiction, 104:4, 554–563.
Nalin, Marco et al. (2019). ‘The European cross-border health data exchange roadmap: Case study in the Italian setting’, Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 94, 103183.
Natali, David (2004). ‘Europeanization, policy arenas, and creative opportunism: the politics of welfare state reforms in Italy’, Journal of European Public Policy, 11:6, 1077–1095.
Natali, David, Emmanuele Pavolini, and Andrea Terlizzi (2023). ‘Multi?Level Governance Feedback and Health Care in Italy in the Aftermath of Covid?19’, Politics and Governance, 11:4, 365–377.
Perna, Roberta (2018). ‘Re-bounding EU citizenship from below: practices of healthcare for “(Il)legitimate EU Migrants” in Italy’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44:5, 829–848.
Radaelli, Claudio M. (2003). ‘The Europeanization of Public Policy’, in Kevin Featherstone and Claudio M. Radaelli (eds.), The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 27–56.
Tuzii, Jennifer (2017). ‘Healthcare information technology in Italy, critiques and suggestions for European digitalization’, Pharmaceuticals Policy and Law, 19:3–4, 161–176.
Zeitlin, Jonathan, and Bart Vanhercke (2018). ‘Socializing the European Semester: EU social and economic policy co-ordination in crisis and beyond’, Journal of European Public Policy, 25:2, 149–174.

 

The European Union finds itself navigating tumultuous waters characterized by multifaceted crises whose nature and potential consequences have fueled the rise of opposing voices across the continent.
Such voices cross-cut different social sectors and involve political parties, civil society associations, social movements, and the public at large. Moreover, if it is on the one hand true that radical right voices are significantly growing since the past few years, on the other hand, also left wing radicalism should not be excluded from the equation (see the recent creation of the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht party in Germany).
The study of these multifaceted opposing voices entails the analysis of their “visions of Europe”, the way in which they see and perceive the EU or how the EU should look like. There are two main reasons stressing the cruciality of such research agenda: firstly and in view of the European Parliament elections 2024, it allows to shed some light on how citizens, civil society associations, social movements and political parties perceive the European union alongside its integration process(es). Secondly, while the rise of opposing voices is nowadays a consolidated reality, the impact of such visions on the future EU alongside its democratic architecture is still unclear.
This panel asks for contributions able to grasp, empirically analyze, and compare such “visions on Europe” (Caiani Weißkircher 2020) seeking to explain which their nature, interconnections and orientations are. More precisely the panel will include contributions that:
• Shed light on Europeanization of both civil society associations, social movements and political parties promoting both a bottom-up and a top-down analytical perspective.
• Focus on the “narratives on Europe” formulated and used by extreme right and left wing actors (e.g.: social movements and political parties) while promoting their visions of Europe.
• Propose a strong comparative perspective while seeking to reach generalizable conclusions over the Europeanization processes.
• Rely on different analytical and methodological tools and data: from survey analysis to text analysis or frame analysis. In other words, the panel seeks and promotes the use of a mixed method approach relying on multiple data sources (e.g.: survey data, textual data and so on) and mixing both quantitative and qualitative perspectives.
• Investigate the causes and the triggering factors of opposition to the European Union relying on a strongly dynamic and processual approach.
• Present an innovative and interdisciplinary approach in terms of both the proposed theoretical framework and the included disciplines.

 

A series of independent, but mutually reinforcing crises (from the sovereign debt crisis, to immigration, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing energy and inflation crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, the climate emergency) have tested in multiple ways the European approach to emergency policymaking.

Among EU member states, after the outburst of the sovereign debt crisis, initial policy responses have focused on the need to increase supranational monitoring of member states. This has materialized in the increased coordination, and increased Commission involvement, in national budgetary policies (e.g., with the European Semester). Financial assistance to countries was mainly seen in the light of rigid conditionality, which can be seen in the bailouts of Ireland, Portugal, and most notably Greece. The creation of a permanent instruments to manage loans to countries in financial difficulties (the ESM) followed the same logic. The European banking union is another example of this increased centralization of EU financial surveillance.

Starting from 2012, a new phase has begun, marked by a more active and anti-cyclical intervention of the European Central Bank (ECB), which has adopted a more accommodating monetary policy, both towards states and businesses: the so-called “quantitative easing” (a massive programme of public and private bond purchases) has helped reduce the cost of financing for both states and businesses throughout Europe, leading to a relative calm on financial markets as well. In the meantime, the Commission reduced its demands of fiscal consolidation and internal devaluation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has elicited even more radical responses: i) an upgrading of the ECB quantitative easing (the Pandemic emergency purchase programme, PEPP); ii) the suspension and, later, substantial redrafting of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP); iii) the adoption of the Next Generation EU relief package. The latter led member states to formulate ambitious National Recovery and Resilience Plans, whose implementation is ongoing.

Finally, the Russo-Ukrainian war has led to a quick and unexpected increase in energy prices that, together with bottlenecks due to the post-pandemic recovery, yielded a rapid rise in inflation rates throughout the continent. The risk of two-digit inflation has prompted a strong U-turn in ECB monetary policy, with the phasing-out of bond purchase programmes and quick rises in interest rates that still need to fall in light of easing pressures on prices.

This panel encourages papers that explore any aspect related to the changes in European governance and European policymaking related to the challenges above, and in particular:
• investigating the European Semester and its policy cycle, and its change within Next Generation EU;
• investigating the path-dependent and path-departing elements of NGEU;
• investigating and explaining the structure and adoption of the NRRPs;
• looking at the relationship between the “technocratic” bodies established to implement the NRRPs and the “political” bodies at the national and EU levels;
• analysing the genesis of the main institutional innovations of the previous years (which motivations have pushed member states to pursue integration? who has benefitted or lost more from the new setup?);
• focusing on the responsiveness of the EU political environment to demands arising from the European public opinion or from national public opinions;
• investigating the institutional and socioeconomic impacts of the Ukrainian crisis on the EMU and related instruments.

The panel is open to contributions based on different methodologies (quantitative analyses, case studies, analytic narratives, process tracing, comparative qualitative studies). Comparisons between European cases and cases from outside Europe are welcome. The panel is also open to studies from different disciplines: from political science to sociology, from economics to law.

 

A series of independent, but mutually reinforcing crises (from the sovereign debt crisis, to immigration, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing energy and inflation crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, the climate emergency) have tested in multiple ways the European approach to emergency policymaking.

Among EU member states, after the outburst of the sovereign debt crisis, initial policy responses have focused on the need to increase supranational monitoring of member states. This has materialized in the increased coordination, and increased Commission involvement, in national budgetary policies (e.g., with the European Semester). Financial assistance to countries was mainly seen in the light of rigid conditionality, which can be seen in the bailouts of Ireland, Portugal, and most notably Greece. The creation of a permanent instruments to manage loans to countries in financial difficulties (the ESM) followed the same logic. The European banking union is another example of this increased centralization of EU financial surveillance.

Starting from 2012, a new phase has begun, marked by a more active and anti-cyclical intervention of the European Central Bank (ECB), which has adopted a more accommodating monetary policy, both towards states and businesses: the so-called “quantitative easing” (a massive programme of public and private bond purchases) has helped reduce the cost of financing for both states and businesses throughout Europe, leading to a relative calm on financial markets as well. In the meantime, the Commission reduced its demands of fiscal consolidation and internal devaluation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has elicited even more radical responses: i) an upgrading of the ECB quantitative easing (the Pandemic emergency purchase programme, PEPP); ii) the suspension and, later, substantial redrafting of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP); iii) the adoption of the Next Generation EU relief package. The latter led member states to formulate ambitious National Recovery and Resilience Plans, whose implementation is ongoing.

Finally, the Russo-Ukrainian war has led to a quick and unexpected increase in energy prices that, together with bottlenecks due to the post-pandemic recovery, yielded a rapid rise in inflation rates throughout the continent. The risk of two-digit inflation has prompted a strong U-turn in ECB monetary policy, with the phasing-out of bond purchase programmes and quick rises in interest rates that still need to fall in light of easing pressures on prices.

This panel encourages papers that explore any aspect related to the changes in European governance and European policymaking related to the challenges above, and in particular:
• investigating the European Semester and its policy cycle, and its change within Next Generation EU;
• investigating the path-dependent and path-departing elements of NGEU;
• investigating and explaining the structure and adoption of the NRRPs;
• looking at the relationship between the “technocratic” bodies established to implement the NRRPs and the “political” bodies at the national and EU levels;
• analysing the genesis of the main institutional innovations of the previous years (which motivations have pushed member states to pursue integration? who has benefitted or lost more from the new setup?);
• focusing on the responsiveness of the EU political environment to demands arising from the European public opinion or from national public opinions;
• investigating the institutional and socioeconomic impacts of the Ukrainian crisis on the EMU and related instruments.

The panel is open to contributions based on different methodologies (quantitative analyses, case studies, analytic narratives, process tracing, comparative qualitative studies). Comparisons between European cases and cases from outside Europe are welcome. The panel is also open to studies from different disciplines: from political science to sociology, from economics to law.