From the Wieser report to Team Europe: explaining the ‘battle of the banks’ in development finance

Hodson, Dermot; Howarth, David

doi:10.1080/13501763.2023.2221301

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to earlier EU economic governance blueprints, the current approach does not seek further centralization The Commission and the ECB's Policies Advancing the 'Green Transition' and a hierarchical organization. Rather, it entails transferring more responsibility to and demanding more commitment from the member states in order to accommodate diverse national growth models, developmental trajectories and preferences (Ban and Helgadóttir 2022;Blyth et al 2022;Hodson and Howarth 2023;Mertens et al 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gouvernement Économique, but Not Like in the 1990s: The Commission and the ECB's Policies Advancing the ‘Green Transition’

Spendzharova

2023

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gouvernement Économique, but Not Like in the 1990s: The Commission and the ECB's Policies Advancing the ‘Green Transition’

Spendzharova

2023

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…EU member states agreed on a joint implementation through a Team-Europe approach, which mobilizes resources of the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Commission, and national development finance institutions. The alternative approach suggested by the Wieser Group to create a single entity for external development finance, uniting both European banks, was rejected by EU member states (Council of the European Union, 2019; Hodson & Howarth, 2023).…”

Section: Setting Up the Global Gateway Strategy: China's Rise As A Gl...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Europe’s Global Gateway: A New Instrument of Geopolitics

Heldt

2023

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In December 2021, the EU member states agreed on the Global Gateway strategy to mobilize public and private funds of up to €300 billion between 2021 and 2027, to invest in digital, climate and energy, transport, health, education, and research fields. With a geographical focus on Africa, Global Gateway links infrastructure investment projects with condition principles—including democratic values, good governance, and transparency—and catalyzes private investment into EU development financing. Against this backdrop, this study explores why EU member states agreed on this new geopolitical instrument. This piece posits that the confluence of three factors enabled the creation of Global Gateway. First, the EU established this new instrument to counter China’s role as a global infrastructure lender in Africa. Second, Global Gateway was possible through the shift to private investment in multilateral development financing. Equally important for the establishment of Global Gateway was the European Commission’s transformational leadership as an entrepreneurial agent in designing this geopolitical strategy of the EU’s power projection. The conclusion outlines future research avenues and enables readers to consider the wider prospects and caveats of the Global Gateway strategy.

show abstract

“…European PDBs and DFIs have progressively collaborated among themselves and with other European development actors, as well as with other international PDBs such as the AfDB, World Bank Group, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and Asian Development Bank (ADB) among others to promote adaptation financing in developing countries. However, the current collaboration efforts underutilise their potential to espouse more coordinated financing and make them prone to fragmentation challenges(Hodson and Howarth 2023). The lack of strategic synergies creates unharmonized climate taxonomies and adaptation finance standard differentials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilising (European) development finance for climate adaptation and resilience

Ahairwe,

Bilal

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While global adaptation finance has more than doubled since 2016, from USD 10.1 billion to USD 28.6 billion in 2020, it is still inadequate to meet the costs of adaptation. European DFIs and PDBs have the potential to lead in closing the adaptation financing gap. However, they encounter challenges related to often low, unclear, and missing adaptation finance objectives, limited synergies in the adaptation financing space, and a lack of bankable projects. This paper recommends that European DFIs and PDBs should more actively advance blended adaptation finance approaches, develop a pipeline of bankable projects, adopt innovative financing mechanisms for climate adaptation and resilience, strive for result-oriented adaptation partnerships, and adopt a systematic approach to measuring adaptation risks to support developing countries in adapting to climate change, thereby also reducing negative cascading spill-over risks to Europe.

show abstract

From the Wieser report to Team Europe: explaining the ‘battle of the banks’ in development finance

Cited by 9 publications

References 30 publications

Gouvernement Économique, but Not Like in the 1990s: The Commission and the ECB's Policies Advancing the ‘Green Transition’

Gouvernement Économique, but Not Like in the 1990s: The Commission and the ECB's Policies Advancing the ‘Green Transition’

Europe’s Global Gateway: A New Instrument of Geopolitics

Mobilising (European) development finance for climate adaptation and resilience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About