In its handling of this crisis, financial health is not the only thing at stake for the EU, currently weakened by Brexit and the increasing power of political forces hostile to its liberal-inspired project of political combination. It needs to demonstrate excellent uniformity between member states and show that it can break free from the austerity-led policies used to manage previous crises, all without deserting its primary political goals, consisting of those revealed as part of the European Green Deal.
The COVID-19 pandemic and following public health steps have actually plunged the international economy into the worst crisis it has actually seen considering that the mid-twentieth century. Europe is no exception, with financial analyses from the European Commission showing a 6.4% fall in EU GDP in 2020.
A careful assessment of each of these points exposes that, in spite of clear development, the EU recovery technique will not result in an extreme improving of the European project but, at best, will institutionalise a few modifications while reopening vital debates about the future of the Union.
A minor Hamiltonian moment
This joint debt has revived the crucial discussion worrying the Unions own resources. There are three broad possible opportunities for repayment of the European recovery strategy: member states dig into their pockets and increase their contribution to the EU spending plan; the resources provided to joint programmes and initiatives are cut back; or new ways of raising funds are considered. While the first two options can not be ruled out at this stage, it is the latter that has taken centre-stage following the contract in July 2020 and the adoption of the roadmap for Own Resources by the European Parliament and Council in November 2020.
The joint financial obligation at the basis of the European recovery strategy is underpinned by an uniformity step that is completely relative. Certainly, agreement was only attained through prolonged conversations, in particular with so-called economical states (Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland) that were against the mechanism. The European Council was just able to reach an agreement by giving refunds on contributions to the EU: Austria protected a EUR565 million refund, Denmark EUR377 million, the Netherlands EUR2 billion (regardless of having the second largest trade surplus in the Eurozone after Germany) and Sweden EUR1.069 billion. The key instrument at the heart of the method is the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which will make EUR672.5 billion readily available in the form of loans (EUR360 billion) and grants (EUR312.5 billion) to support reforms and financial investment in member states. Member states have to present Recovery and Resilience Plans that supply a detailed description of their reform and financial investment strategies; a point to which we will return. Here we merely note that of the EUR750 billion obtained, only EUR77.5 billion has been appointed to the EU spending plan.
The option might have been to devote a greater share of the EUR750 billion to funding European programs and tasks. The opposite has actually happened: to seal the deal on recovery and the EU budget, major cuts had actually to be made to the European Commission proposed joint EU program allotment such as those moneying research or supporting workers affected by restructuring.
Will the agreement reached by the European Council on 21 July 2020 usher the EU into a federal era, identified by greater supranationalism and resource sharing? Not necessarily.
Strategies at first consist of a tax on single-use plastics, a carbon border modification mechanism, a digital tax, and a levy on aviation and maritime transport through a modification of the EU Emissions Trading System. Other propositions are set to be put forward prior to the end of the present multiannual monetary structure, including a financial transaction tax.
Any possible qualitative leap in terms of political combination will depend upon these propositions, whose negotiations might well be epic given the stakes involved and the requirement for unanimity on tax legislation.
The sums involved are considerable. Bulgaria, for example, is set to get the equivalent of almost a quarter of its GDP from the European budget plan and the recovery plan by 2026. This facilitation of unprecedented transfers of financial resources marks a historic moment.
The minimized amounts assigned to the existing EU budget plan compared to previous periods (leaving out transfers to the UK) likewise validate that the sharing of financial resources may not be as popular in Europe as the healing strategy appears to recommend.
Most of the cash on loan is earmarked for nationwide strategies, which will have to satisfy specific EU-wide requirements (see below), but which also epitomize to a large degree nationwide priorities. 
Financing investment through the development of a joint financial obligation is a federalist method successfully utilized to seal the cohesion of political integration projects. In 1790 Alexander Hamilton predicted that the production of a federal financial obligation would enhance ties between the entities combined to form the United States of America, while increasing the authority and authenticity of the federal power, which would thereby become indispensable to the prosperity of all.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel, President of the European Council. Photo by German Presidency of the Council of the EU 2020 from Flickr
The European Council has actually come to a contract on the EU budget for the next 7 years, the multiannual financial framework for 2021– 2027 and the EUR750 billion recovery plan. It presents a significant new function into the European architecture: the EU will obtain the amounts required to money national healing plans on behalf of the twenty-seven member states and they will jointly pay back these loans.
The federalist character of the EU recovery strategy can not be taken for granted. The dispute on the conditionality of the rule of law is the most telling demonstration that significant distinctions continue relating to the foundations and goals of the EU, at least within the European Council.
Joint debt is limited in size and time: the EUR750 billion must be repaid by 2058 at the most current. Member states are unified by a fixed-term loan rather than eternal financial obligation, on which Europeans might be pleased to pay interest and accept roll overs.
Reform: The Trojan horse of austerity
To mitigate the impact of the crisis on the labour market, the SURE (Support to reduce unemployment dangers in an emergency) system is lending EUR100 billion to furlough schemes, which has actually also been raised on capital markets for the EU. These procedures reflect a desire to facilitate public costs and prevent the paralysis of principal economic agents while protecting workers from excessive loss of income– a plain contrast to the troika.
This short article initially appeared in La Revue nouvelle 2/2021 as featured in the Eurozine Review 7/2021.
Spain offers a case in point. As one of the worst hit in the EU, with an almost 11% drop in GDP in 2020, the country is set to be one of the European recovery strategys main recipients (around EUR140 billion). The Spanish recovery strategy consists of lots of tasks, many of which fall within the sustainable and digital energy spheres.
But the European recovery plan is composed on more of a palimpsest than a blank page. Its Keynesian-inspired procedures are implanted onto a macroeconomic governance framework whose structures stay mostly the same. The numerous drafts of the European recovery strategy all emphasize the need to make member state healing plans conditional on the adoption of reforms.
The ECs guidance document for member states supplies several helpful indications regarding the possible interpretation of the generic term reform, including: pension reform, labour market reform, lowering administrative and regulative red tape that obstructs business competitiveness, and minimizing labour tax.
The European Central Bank has also played an important role through its Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP), which helps preserve the credit capability of banks and keeps interest rates at really low levels.
While some of the proposed reforms appear to be functional in nature,  others are political, suggesting that austerity, has not totally disappeared. The dominant macroeconomic frame of reference is still mostly based upon the double objectives of lowering public costs and increasing labour market flexibility.
Regulation on the RRF likewise allows the execution of measures that link the healing prepares to sound financial governance (post 9) permitting the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, to suspend its support programmes. Checks will also be put in location to ensure that the exceptional sums offered to certain member states do not lead to extreme costs or scams.
The policy likewise needs that nationwide healing plans are in line with the suggestions and reform strategies developed as part of the European Semester, among the key instruments of EU macroeconomic governance. The requirement for conformity with these country-specific suggestions, paired with the influence on growth and task creation, is the most crucial of the Commissions requirements for assessing the strategies.
The EU recovery strategy likewise has a Keynesian flavour, because its goals are to climb out of the crisis through investment and financial obligation rather than cuts to public costs, pressure on salaries and increased labour market versatility– a significant turning point from the methods used to recover from the 2008– 2009 financial crisis. This modification in direction has been mainly illustrated by the activation of the Stability and Growth Pacts general escape stipulation, which allows member states to break with austerity-led, procyclical budget rules, formerly carried out in a severe way.
2 reforms are still under discussion: the labour market and pensions. Both involve reversing legislation presented by the Spanish conservative federal government in power in 2012, which would curb the labour markets dualization and tackle the precarity experienced by a substantial share of the population. In spite of being key elements of the centre-left federal governments program, these reforms are currently on hold, much to the irritation of trade unions and fulfillment of employer organizations, mainly concerned with the health of public finances.
At stake is the macroeconomic matrix of what comes next. Numerous concerns stay unsolved, consisting of the tough issue of public financial resources put under long-term strain by enormous debt and its corollaries– the future of the European Stability and Growth Pact and the required of the European Central Bank. The healing method has not yet led to the institutionalization of an alternative economic paradigm. The structures of the EUs macroeconomic governance structure stay in location even if their application has been temporarily customized.
The 2020 European Semester recommendations for Spain do not particularly point out these two reforms; while it would be wrong to decrease the European Semester to an austerity-led diktat, particularly in view of its capability to recognize social imbalances, the Spanish case clearly shows how a break with austerity can not be considered approved. The content of the different reform strategies will be decisive and it is vital that a balance of power enables progressive social and political forces that avoid austerity policies returning through the back entrance of reform.
Green strategy-led technological acceleration
The Greenwash GuerillasPhoto by fotdmike from Flickr
While the assessment procedures set out eligibility criteria that leave out technologies with a significant impact on the environment, they still permit for a certain margin of gratitude. Therefore, while using nonrenewable fuel sources to produce electrical energy is considered incompatible with the do no considerable harm principle, some exceptions are made, in specific for coal-dependent areas.
RRF-funded jobs should not cause any considerable environmental damage. The measured spending targets and evaluation treatments put in place needs to guarantee consistency between the European recovery plan and the EUs climate and environmental targets.
Far, the limitations of electrification as a decarbonization strategy have not been totally addressed.
The European healing strategy is also presumed to be green. They will not be sufficient to meet the 2030 emissions decrease targets alone, which, according to the European Commission, need an extra EUR438 billion yearly.
Another risk, especially for large member states that have adopted their own national recovery plan independently of European funds, is the temptation to use European funds for green tasks that would have gone on anyway and to keep less ethical tasks for the greyer location of national funding. This challenges the additionality principle governing the allowance of European funds, which may be used to change existing national funding. Double accounting is also a danger, especially for co-funded projects.
Here, there are grounds for tempering the enthusiasm some have shown for this green healing. There are questions about the ability of the procedures put in place to evaluate in detail all the jobs moneyed by the recovery plan, or even those funded by the RRF alone.
It is therefore vital for the Green Deal to develop the conditions of a healing suitable with the constraints of climate modification that accelerate decarbonization and curb energy usage. If not, we will be chasing an impression of green growth that is unachievable in the long term.
The member states healing strategies are yet to be taken a look at in information. While many of the released nationwide strategies do highlight activities such as energy-efficient structure restoration, usage of eco-friendly energy sources, electric roadway transportation and establishing the clean hydrogen sector, they also feature several tasks with plainly unfavorable or unclear impact.
The green qualifications of the healing technique should likewise be viewed in relation to its other goals such as digitalization of the economy. Around 20% of RRF funds are to be invested in digitalization, without any concerns being raised about synergies and possible tensions between this objective and ecological targets.
Cyber Security © Ramin Aryaie Photo through Das Progressive Zentrum
The healing strategy is not merely a technical instrument created to resolve an economic crisis. It exposes an image of Europe as a political job. Despite the scale of the resources included, it is not a break with the past in terms of the nature of the European political job.
There are three broad possible opportunities for repayment of the European recovery plan: member states dig into their pockets and increase their contribution to the EU spending plan; the resources made offered to joint programmes and initiatives are cut back; or brand-new ways of raising funds are thought about. The numerous drafts of the European healing strategy all highlight the need to make member state recovery plans conditional on the adoption of reforms.
Numerous concerns remain unresolved, consisting of the tough problem of public financial resources put under long-lasting stress by gigantic debt and its corollaries– the future of the European Stability and Growth Pact and the mandate of the European Central Bank. Another risk, particularly for big member states that have actually embraced their own nationwide healing strategy independently of European funds, is the temptation to use European funds for green projects that would have gone ahead anyway and to keep less ethical tasks for the greyer location of national funding. The European Commission just recently proposed continued activation of the Stability and Growth Pact safeguard clause up until 2022; see Commission Presents Updated Approach to Fiscal Policy Response to Coronavirus Pandemic, European Commission, 3 March 2021, https://cutt.ly/0zn7zhH.
The terms digital and digitalization do not even appear in the Commission file that sets out the method in which the ecological effect of jobs is to be examined. In a recent report, the French High Council on Climate determined the impact of the 5G roll-out, especially on imported emissions and increased electricity intake.
The authors of this post wrote it in their own capability and it only shows their individual views.
 This does not however prevent prospective financing of joint jobs chosen through the national recovery strategies.
 See Nicolas de Sadeleer, La condition “État de droit”, un coup dÉtat institutionnel au niveau européen?, LÉcho, 30 December 2020.
 The sped up roll-out of renewable resource, for instance, may require regulatory changes to the operation of the transportation and electricity circulation networks.
Translated and edited by Cadenza Academic Translations.
According to Eurostat information, combustible fossil fuels supplied 40% of the electrical power produced by the EU 27 in 2018. See EU Energy in Figures 2020, Statistical Pocketbook 2020, p. 94
 The European Commission just recently proposed ongoing activation of the Stability and Growth Pact safeguard provision up until 2022; see Commission Presents Updated Approach to Fiscal Policy Response to Coronavirus Pandemic, European Commission, 3 March 2021, https://cutt.ly/0zn7zhH.