{"title":"从Wieser报告到欧洲团队:解释发展融资中的“银行之战”","authors":"D. Hodson, D. Howarth","doi":"10.1080/13501763.2023.2221301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) and its member states are the world ’ s largest development donor, but the European fi nancial architecture for development su ff ers from well-documented problems of fragmentation. EU member states ’ decision to convene the Wieser Group in April 2019 raised expectations over rationalising the roles of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). However, the Council of the EU showed little enthusiasm for the group ’ s call to create a single entity for external development fi nance. Twelve months later, member states endorsed Team Europe, an alternative approach which mobilises the resources of the EIB, the EBRD, the European Commission and national development fi nance institutions in support of shared development goals. This article seeks to explain why the Council ultimately preferred Team Europe ’ s coordinated approach to the Wieser Report ’ s centralised vision of a European Climate and Sustainable Development Bank. In keeping with new intergovernmentalism, we fi nd that member states ’ willingness to cooperate but reluctance to delegate, and the aim of EU institutions to protect their turf, favoured Team Europe. We see few reasons to expect radical changes in this domain despite continued doubts over the e ff ectiveness and coherence of European development fi nance.","PeriodicalId":51362,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From the Wieser report to Team Europe: explaining the ‘battle of the banks’ in development finance\",\"authors\":\"D. Hodson, D. Howarth\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13501763.2023.2221301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The European Union (EU) and its member states are the world ’ s largest development donor, but the European fi nancial architecture for development su ff ers from well-documented problems of fragmentation. EU member states ’ decision to convene the Wieser Group in April 2019 raised expectations over rationalising the roles of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). However, the Council of the EU showed little enthusiasm for the group ’ s call to create a single entity for external development fi nance. Twelve months later, member states endorsed Team Europe, an alternative approach which mobilises the resources of the EIB, the EBRD, the European Commission and national development fi nance institutions in support of shared development goals. This article seeks to explain why the Council ultimately preferred Team Europe ’ s coordinated approach to the Wieser Report ’ s centralised vision of a European Climate and Sustainable Development Bank. In keeping with new intergovernmentalism, we fi nd that member states ’ willingness to cooperate but reluctance to delegate, and the aim of EU institutions to protect their turf, favoured Team Europe. We see few reasons to expect radical changes in this domain despite continued doubts over the e ff ectiveness and coherence of European development fi nance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of European Public Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of European Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2221301\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2221301","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
From the Wieser report to Team Europe: explaining the ‘battle of the banks’ in development finance
The European Union (EU) and its member states are the world ’ s largest development donor, but the European fi nancial architecture for development su ff ers from well-documented problems of fragmentation. EU member states ’ decision to convene the Wieser Group in April 2019 raised expectations over rationalising the roles of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). However, the Council of the EU showed little enthusiasm for the group ’ s call to create a single entity for external development fi nance. Twelve months later, member states endorsed Team Europe, an alternative approach which mobilises the resources of the EIB, the EBRD, the European Commission and national development fi nance institutions in support of shared development goals. This article seeks to explain why the Council ultimately preferred Team Europe ’ s coordinated approach to the Wieser Report ’ s centralised vision of a European Climate and Sustainable Development Bank. In keeping with new intergovernmentalism, we fi nd that member states ’ willingness to cooperate but reluctance to delegate, and the aim of EU institutions to protect their turf, favoured Team Europe. We see few reasons to expect radical changes in this domain despite continued doubts over the e ff ectiveness and coherence of European development fi nance.
期刊介绍:
The primary aim of the Journal of European Public Policy is to provide a comprehensive and definitive source of analytical, theoretical and methodological articles in the field of European public policy. Focusing on the dynamics of public policy in Europe, the journal encourages a wide range of social science approaches, both qualitative and quantitative. JEPP defines European public policy widely and welcomes innovative ideas and approaches. The main areas covered by the Journal are as follows: •Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of public policy in Europe and elsewhere •National public policy developments and processes in Europe •Comparative studies of public policy within Europe