拯救欧盟:双速还是双轨改革?

IF 2.4 Q2 ECONOMICS
S. Rosefielde
{"title":"拯救欧盟:双速还是双轨改革?","authors":"S. Rosefielde","doi":"10.5709/ce.1897-9254.304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the most recent decade, the European Union has shown itself to be less robust than globalists imagined. Globalists believed that supranationality was weatherproof – that it would always outperform national alternatives and would survive adversity. Economic stagnation and Brexit belied these expectations. This essay investigates one aspect of the EU’s supranational plight: incompatible goals and the difficulty of mutual accommodation, especially during hard times. EU supranationalists contend that the shared dreams assure harmonious results, but experience reveals that supranational government is shakier than advocates claim because shared ideals and benefits have not been enough for members to put aside conflicting national interests. These rivalries do not doom the European Union’s globalizing project, but they do expose the vulnerabilities of its premises. Supranational union is proving to be unsatisfactory to both many centralizers demanding “more Europe” and decentralizers insisting on “less Europe”. EU leaders are aware of the problem but are wedded to a one-track, two-speed supranational approach that is destined to fail. A dual-track supranational solution analogous to China’s “one country, two systems” offers a better alternative.","PeriodicalId":44824,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Economics","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Salvaging the EU: Two-Speed or Dual-Track Reform?\",\"authors\":\"S. Rosefielde\",\"doi\":\"10.5709/ce.1897-9254.304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the most recent decade, the European Union has shown itself to be less robust than globalists imagined. Globalists believed that supranationality was weatherproof – that it would always outperform national alternatives and would survive adversity. Economic stagnation and Brexit belied these expectations. This essay investigates one aspect of the EU’s supranational plight: incompatible goals and the difficulty of mutual accommodation, especially during hard times. EU supranationalists contend that the shared dreams assure harmonious results, but experience reveals that supranational government is shakier than advocates claim because shared ideals and benefits have not been enough for members to put aside conflicting national interests. These rivalries do not doom the European Union’s globalizing project, but they do expose the vulnerabilities of its premises. Supranational union is proving to be unsatisfactory to both many centralizers demanding “more Europe” and decentralizers insisting on “less Europe”. EU leaders are aware of the problem but are wedded to a one-track, two-speed supranational approach that is destined to fail. A dual-track supranational solution analogous to China’s “one country, two systems” offers a better alternative.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44824,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Economics\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1089\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.304\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1089","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.304","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在最近的十年里,欧盟已经证明自己没有全球主义者想象的那么强大。全球主义者认为,超国家是经得起风雨的——它总能胜过其他国家,并能在逆境中生存下来。经济停滞和英国脱欧让这些预期落空。本文研究了欧盟超国家困境的一个方面:不相容的目标和相互适应的困难,特别是在困难时期。欧盟的超国家主义者认为,共同的梦想确保了和谐的结果,但经验表明,超国家政府比拥护者声称的更不稳定,因为共同的理想和利益不足以让成员国抛开相互冲突的国家利益。这些对抗并没有使欧盟的全球化计划注定失败,但它们确实暴露了其前提的脆弱性。事实证明,对于许多要求“更多欧洲”的集权主义者和坚持“更少欧洲”的分权主义者来说,超国家联盟都不能令人满意。欧盟领导人意识到了这个问题,但执着于单轨、双速的超国家方式,这注定会失败。类似于中国“一国两制”的超国家双轨解决方案提供了更好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Salvaging the EU: Two-Speed or Dual-Track Reform?
In the most recent decade, the European Union has shown itself to be less robust than globalists imagined. Globalists believed that supranationality was weatherproof – that it would always outperform national alternatives and would survive adversity. Economic stagnation and Brexit belied these expectations. This essay investigates one aspect of the EU’s supranational plight: incompatible goals and the difficulty of mutual accommodation, especially during hard times. EU supranationalists contend that the shared dreams assure harmonious results, but experience reveals that supranational government is shakier than advocates claim because shared ideals and benefits have not been enough for members to put aside conflicting national interests. These rivalries do not doom the European Union’s globalizing project, but they do expose the vulnerabilities of its premises. Supranational union is proving to be unsatisfactory to both many centralizers demanding “more Europe” and decentralizers insisting on “less Europe”. EU leaders are aware of the problem but are wedded to a one-track, two-speed supranational approach that is destined to fail. A dual-track supranational solution analogous to China’s “one country, two systems” offers a better alternative.
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
3.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The mission of the Contemporary Economics is to publish advanced theoretical and empirical research in economics, finance, accounting and management with the noticeable contribution and impact to the development of those disciplines and preferably with practice relevancies. All entirety of methods is desirable, including a falsification of conventional understanding, theory building through inductive or qualitative research, first empirical testing of a theory, meta-analysis with theoretical implications, constructive replication that clarifies the boundaries or range of a theory for theoretical research as well as qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, meta-analytic, and combination for an empirical research. This clear priority for comprehensive manuscripts containing a methodology-based theoretical and empirical research with implications and recommendations for policymaking does not exclude manuscripts entirely focused on theory or methodology. Manuscripts that raise significant, actual topics of international relevance will be highly appreciated. The interdisciplinary approach including – besides economic, financial, accounting or managerial –also other aspects, is welcomed.
×
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