IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/eurrev/v30y2022i3p374-392_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The COVID-19 Crisis: The EU Recovery Fund and its Implications for European Integration – a Paradigm Shift

Author

Listed:
  • Luo, Chih-Mei

Abstract

The EU’s latest decision on adopting the recovery fund was revolutionary, both quantitatively and qualitatively. It would also dominate the EU’s economic governance of the decade of the 2020s. This article is an attempt to evaluate whether the EU’s recovery fund was the right policy answers to the post-COVID-19 EU economy or not, and explore its meanings and implications for European integration. This article argues that COVID-19 hit the EU at a time of health and social precariousness, and proved the conventional economic governance unsustainable. Necessities for game-changing in the post-COVID-19 economic governance were justified on both practical and moral grounds. Judging with these yardsticks, the EU’s recovery fund was evaluated as a welcomed paradigm shift in both the ideology and methodology of its economic governance. Beyond a contemporary economic rescue package, the recovery fund implied laying the cornerstone of completing a fiscal union in the Eurozone, for enhancing institutional functions of the European Commission, and for rediscovering the nature of European integration as the rescuer of national states, through the newly-forming consensus between Eurosceptic nationalists and pro-EU integrationists. This article reminds us that the COVID-19 crisis was a crucial opportunity for EU leadership to legitimize the EU’s existence in the post-Brexit era. If well implemented, the recovery fund could usher in a new chapter of European integration. If it fails, European integration would be at risk of further fragmentation and entrench into an ever-stronger anti-EU populism.

Suggested Citation

  • Luo, Chih-Mei, 2022. "The COVID-19 Crisis: The EU Recovery Fund and its Implications for European Integration – a Paradigm Shift," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 374-392, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:30:y:2022:i:3:p:374-392_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S106279872100003X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:30:y:2022:i:3:p:374-392_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/erw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.