IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v45y2026i1p71-93..html

Alignment and asymmetry: European and national crisis governance under the Recovery and Resilience Facility

Author

Listed:
  • Eugenio Borgognoni
  • Igor Guardiancich
  • Enrico Borghetto
  • Luca Cabras
  • Lucia Quaglia

Abstract

The European Union (EU) and its member states are a paradigmatic case of governance at multiple levels, whose interpretation and resolution of crises may or may not be aligned. This paper explores such alignment by perusing how the European Union’s NextGenerationEU (NGEU) plan and its centerpiece, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), contributed to shaping national crisis governance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Focusing on the political dimension of crisis governance, it conceptualizes the EU response as a supranational driver of crisis-induced policy change and interprets National Recovery and Resilience Plans as domestic expressions of this logic. Through the comparative analysis of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, the study assesses the degree of correspondence between EU and national strategies. The findings suggest that Italy and Spain, which had higher RRF allocations, embraced a “governing by the crisis” approach that transposed the transformative aims of NGEU, resulting in accelerated policy change. In contrast, France and Germany followed a more traditional “governing the crisis” strategy, leading to policy normalization and limited reform progress. The analysis highlights that EU fiscal support played a key role in shaping national priorities and reform trajectories in response to the pandemic.

Suggested Citation

  • Eugenio Borgognoni & Igor Guardiancich & Enrico Borghetto & Luca Cabras & Lucia Quaglia, 2026. "Alignment and asymmetry: European and national crisis governance under the Recovery and Resilience Facility," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 45(1), pages 71-93.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:45:y:2026:i:1:p:71-93.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puaf038
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:oup:polsoc:v:45:y:2026:i:1:p:71-93.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    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.