Europe is in crisis and doubts emerge about the capacity of the European Union (EU) to overcome it. This crisis and those doubts share many similarities. They are severe, multidimensional and possibly durable. Understanding them and proposing a few modest solutions require adopting a comprehensive approach mixing the three dominant patterns of the EU: an economic market based on trade and solidarity, a set of constraining norms protected by judicial institutions and a political space under construction characterised by the interaction between a (weak) central core and (strong) domestic arenas. (First paragraph

Blot, Christophe

Rozenberg, Olivier

Saraceno, Francesco

Streho, Imola

L'Europe est en crise et des doutes se font jour sur la capacité de l'Union européenne (UE) à y faire face. Cette crise et ces doutes ont de nombreux points communs. Ils sont profonds, multidimensionnels et sans doute durables. Pour les comprendre et proposer, modestement, quelques solutions, il est nécessaire d'emprunter une démarche d'ensemble intégrant les trois principales facettes de l'UE : un marché fondé sur l'échange et la solidarité, un ensemble de normes de droit adossées à un système de protection juridictionnelle et un espace politique en construction caractérisé par la tension entre un centre fragile et de solides systèmes nationaux

Archive Ouverte a LUniversite Lyon 2

Reforming Europe? When Economists, Law Scholars and Political Scientists Care About the Future of the EU

SPIRE - Sciences Po Institutional REpository

Revue de l’OFCE / Debates and policies – 134 (2014)
REFORMING EUROPE? 
WHEN ECONOMISTS, LAW SCHOLARS AND POLITICAL 
SCIENTISTS CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE EU
Christophe Blot1, Olivier Rozenberg2, Francesco Saraceno1  
and Imola Streho3
Europe is in crisis and doubts emerge about the capacity of the 
European Union (EU) to overcome it. This crisis and those doubts share 
many similarities. They are severe, multidimensional and possibly 
durable. Understanding them and proposing a few modest solutions 
require adopting a comprehensive approach mixing the three domi-
nant patterns of the EU: an economic market based on trade and 
solidarity, a set of constraining norms protected by judicial institutions 
and a political space under construction characterised by the interac-
tion between a (weak) central core and (strong) domestic arenas.
The impact and nature of what is usually labelled under the name 
of “crisis” can be differentiated for each of those three aspects. We do 
it through a few quantitative data over a recent period by comparing 
the EU to one of its members, France, and to the United States of 
America (US). At the economic level, figure 1 shows the decline of 
GDP in 2009 for the three areas. The slack was rude and, even if the 
worse seems to be behind us, growth rates obtained before the crisis 
have not been reached since, regarding the EU 27 as well as France 
alone – contrary to the US.
1. OFCE, Sciences Po.
2. Sciences Po, Centre d’études européennes.
3. Sciences Po, École de droit and Centre d’études européennes.
Introduction
Christophe Blot, Olivier Rozenberg, Francesco Saraceno and Imola Streho8
Regarding the second aspect, Figure 2 indicates that the number of 
directives and regulations adopted over the recent period tend to 
decline. This trend is seemingly not limited to Europe as the last US 
Congress has also been less productive than the previous ones. France, 
by contrast, is more stable. Researches still have to be done for 
explaining those complex evolutions. They may indicate that the diffi-
culties of the EU are not limited to economic performances and affect, 
in one way or another, the capacity of the EU to regulate public policies.
The last aspect of our focus concentrates on the level of public 
support for the EU level of government. Data presented in Figure 3 
depict a rather contradictory image in that respect. On the one hand, 
trust in the EU has declined severely with a loss of 26 points over seven 
years. The economic and financial crises have destroyed nearly half of 
the credit that the EU had patiently cumulated year after year. On the 
other hand, the average trust vis-à-vis the EU of the public opinions of 
the Twenty-Seven is still superior to the average trust of each domestic 
public opinion vis-à-vis their own government. The distance has 
diminished but there is still one. The only exception to that is the so-
called honey-moon period after domestic elections but the French 
decline after the summer of 2012 shows that it does not last.
This rapid and partial overview highlights the multidimensional 
feature of the on-going EU crisis. As indicated by the comparison with 
the US or with member states, the EU is not the only level where the 
capacity to govern efficiently and with legitimacy is challenged. Yet, 
Figure 1. Real GDP
  2007Q1 = 100
Source: Eurostat, INSEE and Bureau of Economic Analysis.
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EU 27
USA
France
Reforming Europe? 9
what may be more specific to the EU is this multidimensionality 
as economic results, law production and support rates are all matters 
of concerns.  
Figure 2. Legislations passed
Sources: EU: EU Legislative Output 1999-2010 (05/06/2010) [database], Centre for Socio-political Data (CDSP, 
CNRS – Sciences Po) and Centre for EuropeanStudies (CEE, Sciences Po) [producers], Centre for Socio-politicalData 
[distributor]. France: French National Assembly (international agreements excluded). US: US Senate, data for 2007-
2008, 2009-2010 and for 2011-2012 have been divided by two.
Figure 3. Trust in the EU and national governments
Sources: Eurobarometers Standard 67-80. The question was: “I would like to ask you a question about how much 
trust you have in certain institutions. For each of the following institutions, please tell me if you tend to trust it or 
tend not to trust it. The (nationality) government / The European Union”.
0
50
100
150
200
250
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
EU directives and regulations
French laws
USA laws
10
20
30
40
50
60
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Trust in the EU (27)
Trust in national governments (27)
Trust in French government (France)
Christophe Blot, Olivier Rozenberg, Francesco Saraceno and Imola Streho10
Faced to those deep and probably unprecedented challenges, the 
debate leading to the European elections remains mostly hostage of 
two polar views. Either a sort of self-complacency, that prides itself of 
the fact that the crisis did not lead to a collapse of the single currency, 
and finds into this very fact a sort of validation of current European 
policies and of the institutions that accompany them. Or, at the other 
extreme, the view that the crisis, and the disruption that it brought 
especially  to Eurozone peripheral countries,  is an unavoidable effect 
of the European construction, that can only be addressed by rolling 
back on the European integration project.
A reformist approach
We subscribe to neither of these polar views. This volume, and the 
workshop that preceded it, were born from our deep dissatisfaction 
from the management of the crisis. We actually believe that the crisis 
exposes a number of flaws in European construction. European insti-
tutions failed to prevent growing imbalances, and were not adapted 
for managing the ensuing problems. There are a number of reasons, 
which emerge in many of the contributions to this volume, which 
lead to believe that the crisis could have been significantly less harsh, 
were it met with better policies and well-functioning institutions. For 
the same reasons, some of the institutional advances that were trig-
gered by the crisis do not seem to address the structural flaws of the 
European construction. This is why we also believe that the self-
congratulatory attitude of European leaders misplaced. 
This does not mean that we adhere to the view that current policies 
are an intrinsic feature of the European construction, that therefore 
cannot be reformed. Mounting euro skeptic movements tend to 
convey the idea that there is no alternative to current policies, that are 
built into the European construction since its beginning. The perni-
cious effects of austerity and of crisis management would then leave 
no other option than a breaking of the single currency or even of the 
EU itself, as the debate on the possible British referendum of 2017 
stands to show.
In January 2014 we held a workshop at Sciences Po in Paris on 
“Reforming Europe”, whose objective was to gather researchers 
unhappy with the current state of the debate on the EU, in particular 
within the perspective of the European Elections of May 2014.In 
organizing the workshop we felt it to be a duty, for intellectuals 
engaged in the public debate on European policies, to try to break the 
dualism between complacency and Euroskepticism. Exposing the 
Reforming Europe? 11
shortcomings of the European construction, the idiosyncrasies in the 
Union’s decision making process, and the mistakes in the manage-
ment of the crisis, needs not to challenge the whole concept of 
European construction.
While the crisis is financial and economic, it exposed flaws of the 
European governance that go well beyond the field of economics. This 
is why we have adopted an interdisciplinary approach, having political 
scientists, law scholars and economists, bring their own perspective, 
and the perspective of their discipline into an open debate.
This volume has the ambition to feed the discussion leading to the 
elections of May 25 (and possibly beyond). This is why we chose the 
format of short policy briefs, when possible aimed at providing specific 
policy prescriptions, rather than fully fledged academic contributions. 
Our objective is to reach a vast public of policy makers, candidates, 
political parties, unions, entrepreneurial associations, and citizens. The 
researchers who contributed to this volume share the view that 
reforming Europe is necessary and possible at the same time. But the 
reader will not find many other commonalities, and may even find 
contradictory recommendations. The objective of this project is not to 
provide a coherent set of solutions, that would require much more 
than a volume. Ideally, our contributions would serve as a basis and 
starting point for debates that will eventually lead to political choices.
It is noteworthy to underline that all the authors took great care 
while drafting their policy briefs to suggest at least some if not exclu-
sively policy prescriptions that do not require treaty changes and can 
therefore be implemented without having to convey an IGC. Yet, it 
does not mean that changes in treaties would be excluded by prin-
ciple. The reader may then also find a few propositions to this end.
The contributions of this volume are organized under three main 
themes. The first part deals with issues relating to democracy and citi-
zenship, the second with European governance and the third with 
European public policies.
Democracy and European Citizenship
European Union is indeed not a nation state but it is nonetheless a 
political entity with its own institutions – not completely discon-
nected from national institutions –, defining its own rights, laws and 
rules. The exercise of democracy in the EU has then some very specific 
features that must be taken into account notably because the idea of 
citizenship is not well established as in the member states. This is why 
measuring regularly sentiment towards European construction is a 
Christophe Blot, Olivier Rozenberg, Francesco Saraceno and Imola Streho12
first and necessary step to understand democracy issues. In this 
respect, recent Eurobarometer surveys indicate that EU institutions 
suffer from a lack of confidence. But, Bruno Cautrès shows that 
Europe is not blamed per se and exit strategies from the euro area are 
not yet considered significantly. Surveys would rather indicate that 
Europe seems far from citizens. The issue of citizenship is then crucial. 
In EU, it often boils down to mobility issues. Even if it has 
been considered as a major success of European construction, 
Anastasia Iliopoulou-Penot reminds that progresses remain to be 
done. Migrants (inactive citizens, students and Roma population) 
have still significant difficulties. For Selma Bendjaballah, 
Stéphanie Novak and Olivier Rozenberg, the drop in the number of 
legislative decisions reflect the ‘existential doubt’ about EU institu-
tions. They consequently stress that a better expression of political and 
institutional divides is needed. Beyond the number of legislative deci-
sions, the duration of the decision-making process is another source of 
concern. This paralysis results from strategic behavior aimed to control 
the policy agenda. Cesar Garcia Perez de Leon recommends a number 
of reforms of the rules governing the use of time under co-decision. 
More generally, the method ruling EU functioning has evolved. The 
intergovernmental practices have gained momentum whereas the 
community method has been diluted. Delphine Dero-Bugny claims 
yet that Intergovernmental methods are often used for temporary 
periods, and are finally integrated by the Community method. There 
is then no opposition between the two approaches. They should be 
made complementary by rethinking the role of the European Council 
and integrating emergency procedures in order to be able to respond 
quickly in case of crisis. According to the great and charming 
Imola Streho, European Institutions are now more open and trans-
parent. To improve the trust in institutions, the European Parliament 
should pay attention to good administration, which is referred to in 
the primary law of the EU. To this end, the role of the European 
Ombudsman should notably be emphasized and the wide range of 
administrative assistance should be improved. Finally, Antoine Bailleux
considers that a significant strain has been placed on the protection of 
fundamental rights. This is the consequence of the economic, social and 
identity crisis in the EU. It is then incumbent upon the European Parlia-
ment to ensure that fundamental rights continue to serve as a compass 
and frame of reference for EU policies.
Reforming Europe? 13
European Governance
When considering a multidisciplinary approach, European govern-
ance is clearly central as it relates to institutions and implementation 
of economic policies in the EU. The contributions gathered in the 
second part all focus on these issues. The crisis has clearly highlight 
the need for an improvement of governance. It has actually been rein-
forced through “anti crisis” measures. The scope of economic 
surveillance has been enlarged. Fiscal rules have been strengthened 
and banking Union is under way. These recent developments have left 
aside the role European and national Parliaments, regarding notably 
the legislative process. Laure Clément-Wilz considers that increasing 
their role would then provide a clear legal basis for the new missions of 
the EU institutions and strengthen democratization. According to 
Frédéric Allemand and Francesco Martucci, this means avoiding the 
use of intergovernmental agreements, organizing a “euro area” 
committee within the European Parliament and holding an annual 
socio-economic convention to establish the broad thrust of EMU poli-
cies. Another key issue relates to the ability of national governments 
to coordinate their decisions on economic policies more efficiently. 
Catherine Mathieu and Henri Sterdyniak remind indeed the flaws of 
the current governance. They notably insist on the failure of existing 
rules and the lack of solidarity among member states. EMU is structur-
ally heterogeneous and is diverging due to erroneous policy choices. 
Coordination is then the only way out of the crisis. The European 
governance should explicitly aims at providing growth, full-employ-
ment and reducing macroeconomic imbalances. The creation of a 
European tax would also be a significant step towards increased inte-
gration. To this end, the European Union needs to levy taxes for itself. 
The tax base should then be chosen with great care, in line with 
intended objectives, as emphasized by Alexandre Maitrot de la Motte. 
Besides, a better regulation of the financial system is needed. The 
banking union goes in that direction. But it suffers from severe short-
comings. On the one side, the ECB will be in charge of banking 
supervision. But, on the other side, the resolution fund will not be 
fully operational. Moreover, as stressed by Jean-Paul Pollin, regula-
tion should not boil down to a banking union. Separation between 
commercial banking activities and investment activities would 
complement the banking union. In addition, the new task entrusted 
to the ECB raises coordination issues. Christophe Blot, Jérôme Creel, 
Fabien Labondance and Paul Hubert note that, de facto, the ECB will 
deal with a triple mandate (price stability, growth and financial 
stability) and they call for the set up ex nihilo of a supervisory body of 
Christophe Blot, Olivier Rozenberg, Francesco Saraceno and Imola Streho14
the ECB, responsible for discussing and analysing the relevance of the 
conduct of monetary policy under the broader objectives of the ECB.
Issues in European Public Policies
Finally, the debate preceding the European elections should trigger 
public debate on the key issues regarding public policies. Reforming 
institutions should not go without a large reflection on the policies of 
these institutions. This is the aim of the third part of the volume. 
Reducing inequalities should be made a top priority in the EU. 
Francesco Saraceno notably emphasizes that macroeconomic imbal-
ances have been fuelled by inequalities. The crisis has in turn 
exacerbated the problem, especially in peripheral Eurozone countries. 
The struggle against inequalities is therefore strongly connected 
to governance issues. This is why fiscal policies and regulation need to 
be part of the effort to curb inequality. Another dimension of inequali-
ties is related to gender inequalities. Françoise Milewski and 
Réjane Sénac present the ways in which European policy on equality 
have dealt with this issue through EU law on non-discrimination. 
Then, they take up the debates provoked by policy changes, both in 
regards to the aims and their implementation. The problem of 
inequalities necessarily refer to questions about the functioning of 
labour markets and social protection systems. With austerity meas-
ures, most European member states have engaged in structural reforms 
and have cut social spending. Competition has been strengthened in 
social services. In the labour market, Gérard Cornilleau develops the 
alternative between a liberal model of work sharing and a social model 
with unified social rights. Complete social unification may yet be hard 
to achieve so that social frontiers may be defined so as to allow both 
the mobility of workers and their effective social protection. 
Bruno Palier also considers that austerity measures and the structural 
reforms, which have followed, have destroyed social cohesion. Conse-
quently, Europe must now put solidarity at the center of its policies 
and support countries to reinvest in social policies. 
Investing in the future is also the key message carried by 
Xavier Timbeau. He calls for a green “new deal” to foster the transi-
tion to a low carbon economy. To this end, a public-private 
investment plan in the energy transition of the order of 2 points per 
year of European GDP is needed. Those investments would also 
certainly influence the industrial policies measures implemented at 
the European level. They would certainly need to be coordinated. 
Divergences among countries have increased. Both national and Euro-
pean policies should then be reconsidered. For Jean-Luc Gaffard and 
Reforming Europe? 15
Lionel Nesta, supply reforms would then consist in a properly 
designed industrial policy that would consist in establishing a frame-
work aimed at supporting both competition and cooperation between 
the various players of innovation, and thus allowing firms’ strategies to 
be successful. Public policies should also encompass immigration and 
asylum policies. Marie-Laure Basilien-Gainche claims that the 
current approach is based on a misdiagnosis and the mismanagement 
of this politically sensitive issue has unfortunately harmed the compe-
tiveness and credibility of the EU and its Member States. Finally, EU 
has been recently engaged in the negotiation of numerous preferential 
trade and investment agreements. Starting from this, Pierre Boulanger
and Patrick Messerlin analyse EU’s trade policy and propose a distinc-
tion between a policy for a “near circle” (countries neighboring the 
EU), dominated by a goal of political stability, and a policy for a “broad 
circle” (countries with a level of development comparable to that of 
the EU), dominated by a goal of economic growth.


Hal-Diderot

Name not available

http://spire.sciencespo.fr/hdl:/2441/ojhqagc668edaepos0vtgbun6/resources/revue-134-intro.pdf

Reforming Europe? When Economists, Law Scholars and Political Scientists Care About the Future of the EU

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archive Ouverte a LUniversite Lyon 2

SPIRE - Sciences Po Institutional REpository

Hal-Diderot

Name not available