What's in a Polity? Political Institutions and Varieties of Economic Interventionism in the United States and the European Union

IF 3.1 3区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Donato Di Carlo, Lorenzo Moretti, Manuela Moschella
{"title":"What's in a Polity? Political Institutions and Varieties of Economic Interventionism in the United States and the European Union","authors":"Donato Di Carlo,&nbsp;Lorenzo Moretti,&nbsp;Manuela Moschella","doi":"10.1111/gove.70066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article examines the political foundations of industrial policy amid the return of state economic interventionism. Comparing the United States' Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the European Union's Green Deal Industrial Plan (GDIP), it shows that contrasting industrial policy strategies were ultimately shaped by differences in the two polities' legislative rules. In both cases, geopolitical pressures sparked renewed interest in green industrial policymaking. However, procedural mechanisms for majoritarian decision-making in the U.S. Senate enabled the government to overcome partisan veto players and compelled the design of the IRA as a budgetary instrument centered on fiscal subsidies. By contrast, unanimity requirements in the EU's joint decision-making system prevented the Commission from overcoming Member State veto players in the Council, precluding supranational fiscal instruments and resulting in a regulation-based, decentralized approach via national state aid. The findings contribute to the burgeoning debates on the return of industrial policy and state activism by showing how political institutions contribute to shaping not only the scope but also the form of economic interventionism within different polities.</p>","PeriodicalId":48056,"journal":{"name":"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions","volume":"38 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gove.70066","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gove.70066","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the political foundations of industrial policy amid the return of state economic interventionism. Comparing the United States' Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the European Union's Green Deal Industrial Plan (GDIP), it shows that contrasting industrial policy strategies were ultimately shaped by differences in the two polities' legislative rules. In both cases, geopolitical pressures sparked renewed interest in green industrial policymaking. However, procedural mechanisms for majoritarian decision-making in the U.S. Senate enabled the government to overcome partisan veto players and compelled the design of the IRA as a budgetary instrument centered on fiscal subsidies. By contrast, unanimity requirements in the EU's joint decision-making system prevented the Commission from overcoming Member State veto players in the Council, precluding supranational fiscal instruments and resulting in a regulation-based, decentralized approach via national state aid. The findings contribute to the burgeoning debates on the return of industrial policy and state activism by showing how political institutions contribute to shaping not only the scope but also the form of economic interventionism within different polities.

Abstract Image

政体中有什么?美国和欧盟的政治制度和各种经济干预主义
本文考察了在国家经济干预主义回归的背景下产业政策的政治基础。通过对美国《通货膨胀削减法案》(IRA)和欧盟《绿色交易产业计划》(GDIP)的比较,可以发现,两国截然不同的产业政策策略最终是由两国立法规则的差异所决定的。在这两个案例中,地缘政治压力重新激发了人们对绿色产业政策制定的兴趣。然而,美国参议院多数决策的程序机制使政府能够克服党派否决者,并迫使IRA的设计成为以财政补贴为中心的预算工具。相比之下,欧盟联合决策系统中的一致同意要求使委员会无法克服理事会中拥有否决权的成员国,从而排除了超国家财政工具,并通过国家援助产生了一种基于监管的分散方法。这些发现通过展示政治制度如何在不同的政体中不仅影响经济干预主义的范围,而且影响经济干预主义的形式,促进了关于产业政策和国家行动主义回归的蓬勃发展的辩论。
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
5.70
自引率
10.30%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Governance provides a forum for the theoretical and practical discussion of executive politics, public policy, administration, and the organization of the state. Published in association with International Political Science Association''s Research Committee on the Structure & Organization of Government (SOG), it emphasizes peer-reviewed articles that take an international or comparative approach to public policy and administration. All papers, regardless of empirical focus, should have wider theoretical, comparative, or practical significance.
×
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