From one crisis to another: changes in the governance of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)

Abstract

The article examines the evolution of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in the aftermath of COVID-19 and compares the current crisis with the previous one (the financial crisis of 2008–2013). It does so by looking at the way interests, ideas and institutions have evolved over the last decade. It looks at the possible changes in European economic governance in the light of three different models of European integration. The goal is not only to describe the differences between the two periods of crisis but also to understand the amplitude of those changes. In the actor-centred ‘institutionalism’ approach of this article, particular attention is paid to conflicts and tensions including inside the EU institutions. This allow for the elements of continuity and rupture to be highlighted and for speculation on the possibility of a new paradigm emerging.

Cui bono – business or labour? Job retention policies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe

“…Moreover, the European Commission (2020) promoted STW as an effective tool for firms to reduce labour costs, increase flexibility without firing costs, and preserve human capital during a crisis. In March 2020, acting on a proposal tabled by the European Commission, the European Council negotiated emergency funding to be disbursed from unused EU Cohesion Funds, soon to be followed by the ground-breaking agreement on SURE (de la Porte and Jensen, 2021; Pochet, 2022) and signalling ‘this time is different’. The EU support helped Mediterranean and CEE governments to ramp up borrowing in order to spend more on employment protection during the crisis (European Commission, 2021a), finally followed by the Next Generation EU recovery plan at the end of 2020.…”

Europeanisation in the aftermath of COVID-19: the organisational adaptation of the central governance of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan in Italy

“…Fourth, NGEU and the RRF significantly increase the EU fiscal capacity with important effects on the logic of EU integration. As stressed by Pochet (2022), during the pandemic, the need to react via fiscal expansion was acknowledged since the start. NGEU has complemented the measures agreed upon by the Eurogroup in support of healthcare, addressing unemployment and short-time work, and offering support to firms (Buti 2020).…”

The revival of Social Europe: is this time different?

“…With the revival of Social Europe outlined above, the question remains whether there is a rebalancing of the economic and social dimensions of the EU and whether the EU’s economic model is changing (Pochet, 2022). As discussed in the previous section, a clear revival of Social Europe can be observed in terms of social Directives, Recommendations, and other forms of regulation, complemented by new types of financing for social policy.…”