从Wieser报告到欧洲团队:解释发展融资中的“银行之战”

IF 4.6 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
D. Hodson, D. Howarth
{"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}
引用次数: 2

摘要

欧盟(EU)及其成员国是世界上最大的发展捐助国,但欧洲的发展金融体系存在着有据可查的碎片化问题。欧盟成员国决定于2019年4月召开维泽集团会议,这提高了人们对欧洲投资银行(EIB)和欧洲复兴开发银行(EBRD)角色合理化的期望。然而,欧盟理事会对该组织要求建立一个单一的外部发展融资实体的呼吁几乎没有表现出热情。12个月后,成员国批准了欧洲团队,这是一种调动欧洲投资银行、欧洲复兴开发银行、欧盟委员会和国家发展融资机构资源支持共同发展目标的替代方法。这篇文章试图解释为什么理事会最终倾向于欧洲团队的协调方法,而不是维瑟报告中关于欧洲气候与可持续发展银行的集中愿景。为了与新的政府间主义保持一致,我们发现成员国愿意合作但不愿授权,以及欧盟机构保护其地盘的目标,有利于欧洲团队。尽管人们对欧洲发展融资的有效性和一致性仍持怀疑态度,但我们几乎没有理由期待这一领域发生根本性变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
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
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
83
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
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信