欧洲绿色产业政策走到了十字路口?一套政策专家联合试验的试点

Francesco Nicoli, Marie-Sophie Lappe
{"title":"欧洲绿色产业政策走到了十字路口?一套政策专家联合试验的试点","authors":"Francesco Nicoli,&nbsp;Marie-Sophie Lappe","doi":"10.1002/cep4.70022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper explores experts' opinions towards EU industrial and climate policy amidst significant geopolitical and economic challenges. Utilizing a twin conjoint experiment, we investigate policy preferences among experts attending the Bruegel Annual Meetings in 2024, focusing on industrial and climate policy trade-offs. The paper addresses critical issues such as fiscal discipline, market competition, the formation of European champions, and supply chain strategies, particularly in the context of competition with the United States and China. We find a mild consensus among experts for a policy mix that includes increased investment in strategic industries, market competition, and a shift toward “friendshoring” supply chains, favoring countries with aligned political interests. Climate policy preferences reveal stronger support for decarbonization, with experts favoring policies that prioritize environmental goals over firm competitiveness and fiscal discipline. The paper's contribution is twofold. First-off, we pilot and demonstrate the feasibility of exploiting professional gatherings to deploy small-scale conjoint experiments. Hence, we contribute in advancing the study of expert preferences, demonstrating the (qualified) feasibility of experimental methods by means of one of the first conjoint experiments conducted among EU policy experts, providing insights into their preferences regarding policy trade-offs. Second, we are able to identify clear expert preferences in both industrial and climate policy, despite the low sample size. While the results indicate preferences for compromise solutions in industrial policy, climate policy preferences appear more coherent and climate-oriented.</p>","PeriodicalId":100329,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary European Politics","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cep4.70022","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"European Green Industrial Policy at a Crossroads? A Pilot Set of Conjoint Experiments Among Policy Experts\",\"authors\":\"Francesco Nicoli,&nbsp;Marie-Sophie Lappe\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cep4.70022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper explores experts' opinions towards EU industrial and climate policy amidst significant geopolitical and economic challenges. Utilizing a twin conjoint experiment, we investigate policy preferences among experts attending the Bruegel Annual Meetings in 2024, focusing on industrial and climate policy trade-offs. The paper addresses critical issues such as fiscal discipline, market competition, the formation of European champions, and supply chain strategies, particularly in the context of competition with the United States and China. We find a mild consensus among experts for a policy mix that includes increased investment in strategic industries, market competition, and a shift toward “friendshoring” supply chains, favoring countries with aligned political interests. Climate policy preferences reveal stronger support for decarbonization, with experts favoring policies that prioritize environmental goals over firm competitiveness and fiscal discipline. The paper's contribution is twofold. First-off, we pilot and demonstrate the feasibility of exploiting professional gatherings to deploy small-scale conjoint experiments. Hence, we contribute in advancing the study of expert preferences, demonstrating the (qualified) feasibility of experimental methods by means of one of the first conjoint experiments conducted among EU policy experts, providing insights into their preferences regarding policy trade-offs. Second, we are able to identify clear expert preferences in both industrial and climate policy, despite the low sample size. While the results indicate preferences for compromise solutions in industrial policy, climate policy preferences appear more coherent and climate-oriented.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary European Politics\",\"volume\":\"3 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cep4.70022\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary European Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cep4.70022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary European Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cep4.70022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了在地缘政治和经济面临重大挑战的情况下,专家对欧盟工业和气候政策的看法。利用双胞胎联合实验,我们调查了2024年参加勃鲁盖尔年会的专家的政策偏好,重点关注工业和气候政策的权衡。本文讨论了财政纪律、市场竞争、欧洲冠军企业的形成和供应链战略等关键问题,特别是在与美国和中国竞争的背景下。我们发现专家们对政策组合达成了温和的共识,包括增加对战略产业的投资,市场竞争,以及向“友谊”供应链的转变,有利于政治利益一致的国家。气候政策偏好显示出对脱碳的更大支持,专家们倾向于将环境目标置于企业竞争力和财政纪律之上的政策。这份报纸的贡献是双重的。首先,我们试点并展示了利用专业聚会部署小规模联合实验的可行性。因此,我们为推进专家偏好的研究做出了贡献,通过在欧盟政策专家中进行的第一次联合实验之一,证明了实验方法的(合格的)可行性,提供了他们对政策权衡偏好的见解。其次,尽管样本量很小,但我们能够在工业和气候政策方面确定明确的专家偏好。虽然结果表明在产业政策中倾向于妥协解决方案,但气候政策偏好似乎更加连贯和以气候为导向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

European Green Industrial Policy at a Crossroads? A Pilot Set of Conjoint Experiments Among Policy Experts

European Green Industrial Policy at a Crossroads? A Pilot Set of Conjoint Experiments Among Policy Experts

This paper explores experts' opinions towards EU industrial and climate policy amidst significant geopolitical and economic challenges. Utilizing a twin conjoint experiment, we investigate policy preferences among experts attending the Bruegel Annual Meetings in 2024, focusing on industrial and climate policy trade-offs. The paper addresses critical issues such as fiscal discipline, market competition, the formation of European champions, and supply chain strategies, particularly in the context of competition with the United States and China. We find a mild consensus among experts for a policy mix that includes increased investment in strategic industries, market competition, and a shift toward “friendshoring” supply chains, favoring countries with aligned political interests. Climate policy preferences reveal stronger support for decarbonization, with experts favoring policies that prioritize environmental goals over firm competitiveness and fiscal discipline. The paper's contribution is twofold. First-off, we pilot and demonstrate the feasibility of exploiting professional gatherings to deploy small-scale conjoint experiments. Hence, we contribute in advancing the study of expert preferences, demonstrating the (qualified) feasibility of experimental methods by means of one of the first conjoint experiments conducted among EU policy experts, providing insights into their preferences regarding policy trade-offs. Second, we are able to identify clear expert preferences in both industrial and climate policy, despite the low sample size. While the results indicate preferences for compromise solutions in industrial policy, climate policy preferences appear more coherent and climate-oriented.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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