Varieties of Ecosocial Policies in the EU: The Case of the National Recovery and Resilience Plans

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Benedetta Cotta, Ekaterina Domorenok, Paolo Graziano, Trajche Panov
{"title":"Varieties of Ecosocial Policies in the EU: The Case of the National Recovery and Resilience Plans","authors":"Benedetta Cotta, Ekaterina Domorenok, Paolo Graziano, Trajche Panov","doi":"10.1111/rego.70057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ecosocial policy integration, required to address the intertwined social and ecological challenges of climate change, has been central to the European Union's Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which was launched to tackle the social and economic impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic while simultaneously supporting the green and digital transitions outlined in the European Green Deal. Drawing on the growing eco‐welfare debate, our contribution first examines how the 27 national plans implementing the RRF integrate social and environmental measures. It then explores the drivers behind different patterns of ecosocial policy integration in three countries which show different levels of ecosocial policy integration: Italy (high), Poland (medium), and Germany (low). Our findings show that institutional factors have been key in shaping national ecosocial policy mixes, driven in the Italian case by a strong governmental will to comply with the EU ecosocial guidelines, whereas in Poland and especially in Germany the absence of ecosocial policy legacies and the limited involvement of pro‐ecosocial societal actors have limited the effective integration of social and ecological measures.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"109 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70057","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ecosocial policy integration, required to address the intertwined social and ecological challenges of climate change, has been central to the European Union's Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which was launched to tackle the social and economic impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic while simultaneously supporting the green and digital transitions outlined in the European Green Deal. Drawing on the growing eco‐welfare debate, our contribution first examines how the 27 national plans implementing the RRF integrate social and environmental measures. It then explores the drivers behind different patterns of ecosocial policy integration in three countries which show different levels of ecosocial policy integration: Italy (high), Poland (medium), and Germany (low). Our findings show that institutional factors have been key in shaping national ecosocial policy mixes, driven in the Italian case by a strong governmental will to comply with the EU ecosocial guidelines, whereas in Poland and especially in Germany the absence of ecosocial policy legacies and the limited involvement of pro‐ecosocial societal actors have limited the effective integration of social and ecological measures.
欧盟生态社会政策的多样性:以国家复苏和弹性计划为例
为应对气候变化带来的错综复杂的社会和生态挑战,生态社会政策整合一直是欧盟恢复和复原力基金(RRF)的核心,该基金的启动旨在应对COVID - 19大流行的社会和经济影响,同时支持《欧洲绿色协议》中概述的绿色和数字化转型。基于日益增长的生态福利辩论,我们的论文首先考察了27个实施RRF的国家计划如何整合社会和环境措施。然后探讨了三个国家不同生态社会政策整合模式背后的驱动因素,这三个国家表现出不同的生态社会政策整合水平:意大利(高),波兰(中等)和德国(低)。我们的研究结果表明,制度因素是形成国家生态社会政策组合的关键,在意大利的情况下,由政府遵守欧盟生态社会指导方针的强烈意愿驱动,而在波兰,特别是在德国,生态社会政策遗产的缺失和亲生态社会行动者的有限参与限制了社会和生态措施的有效整合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信