Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis paper examines whether and how the European Semester has influenced structural reforms in member states. It does so by analysing the interaction between the Commission and the national bureaucratic and political levels. The paper presents two process‐tracing exercises with a focus on those actors that directly worked with the CSRs to assess the political dynamics underpinning the CSR implementation process. First, it examines the more nuanced and indirect effects the Semester had on the liberalization of professions in Italy. Second, it shows how the debate on wage indexation in Belgium turned around over the years and how the Semester was an important factor in introducing reform. The analysis shows the influence of the Semester in terms of issue salience and agenda setting, but it also shows how the Commission can exert real pressure. This pressure may in turn affect the EU's perceived legitimacy, which holds lessons for the Semester's post‐pandemic transformation.

Abstract
The EU's Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) represents a bold integrationist step in European economic governance. Besides the size of the fiscal envelope, the novelty also lies in the new governance. Member states prepare integrated investment and reform plans and need to fulfil milestones and targets to access funding. This article assesses the balance of power in negotiating the plans and the effect on domestic policymaking. Based on five case studies, we show that the RRF has enhanced the steering capacity of the European Commission on reforms and investments, while member states remain ultimately in charge of the plans. Second, we argue that, while the RRF enhances the efficiency of the policymaking process and allows the fast-forwarding of reforms, it has also led to a contractualization of the relationship with the EU and a centralization of decision-making processes within member states. This latter aspect may hamper ownership and legitimacy in policy implementation.

AbstractThe Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) adopted in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic marks an important departure in European Union (EU) governance, as it introduces an innovative "demand‐driven, performance‐based" model aimed at overcoming the limitations of past policies seeking to promote national reforms. In this study, we set out the theoretical assumptions underlying the RRF governance model, and assess its practical effectiveness and legitimacy by analyzing the drafting, implementation, and monitoring of National Recovery and Resilience Plans in eight member states. The study concludes by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the RRF's governance model, relating them to theoretical expectations derived from previous international experience with similar approaches elsewhere, and considers the implications for future EU policy. Our core argument is that while the RRF's governance design has reinforced national ownership and commitment to reform and investment objectives, its performance‐based financing system leads to a mechanical focus on formal verification of predetermined milestones and targets, with negative consequences for both effectiveness and legitimacy. Addressing these problems would require a redesign of the RRF's complete contracting approach, giving member states greater flexibility on the means for achieving agreed commitments, as well as for revising them, not only in response to unanticipated changes in objective circumstances, but also to lessons learned during the implementation process.