布鲁盖尔-Market-versus-policy-Europeanisation_-has-an-imbalance-grown-over-time__13页_604kb

Summary of "Market versus policy Europeanisation: has an imbalance grown over time?"

Core Content

This policy contribution by Francesco Papadia and Leonardo Cadamuro explores the relationship between market Europeanisation and policy Europeanisation over the past few decades. The central hypothesis is that while markets have become increasingly integrated in Europe, the pace of policy integration has not kept up, potentially creating an imbalance that challenges the democratic governance of the European economy.

Main Viewpoints

1. Hegemonic Stability Theory and the Trilemma

• Charles Kindleberger's theory suggests that fragmented national policymaking cannot adequately manage globally integrated markets, leading to risk.
• Dany Rodrik introduced the "inconsistent triangle" concept, which states that democracy, national sovereignty, and (hyper)globalisation cannot all coexist simultaneously.
• Rodrik argues that (hyper)globalisation has overshadowed national policymaking, undermining democratic control over the economy.
• However, the paper questions whether this imbalance has actually grown over time or whether it has remained stable.

2. Market Europeanisation

• Market Europeanisation is measured through intra-European trade and capital flows.
• Intra-European trade has grown significantly since 1970, with a sharp increase before the Great Recession, and a slower growth thereafter.
• The trade-to-GDP ratio has increased from 5% to 15% or more over the period, indicating substantial market integration.
• Financial Europeanisation is also discussed, using capital flows and foreign assets as indicators, though the data is more limited (starting in 2001).

3. Policy Europeanisation

• Policy Europeanisation is measured through the number of public employees in European institutions and agencies compared to national administrations.
• The number of European public employees has increased from fewer than 9,000 in 1970 to nearly 74,000 in 2018, an eight-fold increase.
• The relative share of European public employees compared to national ones has also grown significantly, by a factor of about eight.
• The paper notes that this growth may indicate a technocratic trend in policy Europeanisation, as the majority of EU staff are in national administrations, even though they contribute to European-level tasks.

4. Comparison of Market and Policy Europeanisation

• When comparing the growth of market and policy Europeanisation, the paper finds that policy Europeanisation has developed more rapidly than market Europeanisation.
• The ratio of European to national public employees has grown more than the ratio of intra-European trade to GDP.
• The Maastricht Treaty (1993) and the launch of the euro (1999) are seen as key turning points where policy Europeanisation accelerated relative to market integration.

5. Alternative Measures

• The paper also considers media attention to European issues as an alternative proxy for policy Europeanisation.
• The frequency of European Union news in major national media has increased, but not as rapidly as the growth in public employees.
• This suggests that while public awareness of European issues has grown, the process of policy Europeanisation may be more technocratic than democratic.

Key Findings

• Policy Europeanisation has outpaced market Europeanisation in terms of growth.
• The ratio of European public employees to national ones has increased by about eight times since 1970, while the trade-to-GDP ratio has increased by about three times.
• The technocratic nature of policy Europeanisation is highlighted, as the majority of EU-related tasks are carried out by national staff.
• The growth of European institutions and the expansion of EU membership have contributed to the increase in public employees at the European level.
• The fear of democratic erosion due to market integration not being matched by policy integration is not supported by the data presented in this paper.
• The conclusion is robust across different indicators, but the availability of data varies, which limits the depth of analysis.

Limitations and Future Research

• The paper acknowledges that the measures used are proxies and may not fully capture the complexity of Europeanisation.
• Further research is needed to validate the findings, particularly by using alternative indicators such as the impact of EU legislation on national laws.
• The media attention approach and the financial integration measure are suggested as areas for future exploration.

Conclusion

• Based on the measures used, the paper concludes that there has not been a growing imbalance between market and policy Europeanisation over the last half-century.
• If any imbalance existed in 1970, it has reduced over time, particularly since 1990.
• The technocratic trend in policy Europeanisation may be more pronounced than a genuine political Europeanisation process.
• The democratic concerns raised by Rodrik are not empirically supported by the data analyzed in this paper.