Feed aggregator

Length of video : 15'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

By Marius Guderjan (Centre for British Studies, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) and Mario Kölling (Department of Political Science, Spanish National Distance Education University)

Although the COVID-19 pandemic seems something of the past and meanwhile overshadowed by other crises, we should still remember its profound impact on public health, people, employment and businesses. In 2020, the real GDP in the EU fell by more than 6%, which was higher than during the 2008 financial crisis. The management of the crisis was clearly dominated by national as well as by regional and local governments. Nevertheless, the EU also introduced massive economic and fiscal measures and departed from the austerity policy following the 2008 financial crisis. The EU amended its budget, created new loans, activated the general escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact and expanded the lending capacity of the European Stability Mechanism. Most importantly, the Member States agreed the largest stimulus package in the history of the EU: Next Generation EU (NGEU), which was worth €750 billion financed by joint borrowing.  The key instrument of NGEU was the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), providing €672.5 billion in loans and grants to support reforms and investments undertaken by the Member States.

Given the scale and multilevel nature of the EU’s intervention, our recent JCMS article takes a close look at the EU’s socio-economic responses to the COVID-19 crisis. By analysing existing decision-making procedures and democratic practices, principles of good governance and effective performance, we draw conclusions about the political legitimacy of the RRF and we discuss how the legacy of this measure may shape future governance arrangements.

There is a strong rationale for governments to take fast and extraordinary actions during crises, circumventing and even breaking existing conventions, procedures and rules. However, crisis management may not only challenge the political legitimacy of these actions but may also result in permanent changes to a system of governance. Therefore, we considered who took and authorised decisions and whether this was in line with existing democratic practices, and whether the input legitimacy of the EU’s crisis response (as conceptionalised by Schmidt 2022) was compromised.  Similar to previous crises (as discussed in the literature on new intergovernmentalism, e.g. Puetter 2016 and Bickerton et al. 2014), decisions were dominated by the European Council and the Commission and negotiated behind closed doors. The latter set the RRF’s policy objectives and governance structure to which the former agreed. During 2021 and 2022, Member States then had to submit national Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRP) with detailed targets, milestones, estimated costs and proposals for structural reforms. The RRPs were designed in close bilateral cooperation with the Commission, which gained the authority to decide together with the Council over their implementation.

As during previous crises (see e.g. White 2022 and Kreuder-Sonnen 2016), the newly introduced EU measures lacked transparency, accountability and judicial scrutiny. To capture these, our article also focuses on the RRF’s so-called throughput legitimacy: namely, on its compliance with rules, efficient governance, public engagement and access to information about decision-making processes, and the inclusion of (territorial) interest groups. The RRF is a performance-based instrument that is assessed and disbursed based on the fulfilment of specific milestones and targets outlined in the RRPs. Various criteria (e.g., population size, GDP per capita and unemployment levels) and formats (e.g., the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, performance audits by the European Court of Auditors, Recovery and Resilience Dialogues, evaluation reports) were introduced to enhance the accountability and transparency of allocation of RRF funding. Yet, our article traces various issues regarding the transparency of policymaking. Only two thirds of Member States committed to publishing detailed information about the implementation of the RRPs.

It is often suggested (e.g. by Lindgren and Persson 2010) that the EU’s legitimacy relies largely on its output legitimacy, meaning on its ability to deliver effective results to the satisfaction of its Member States and citizens. It is fair to say that the RRF has supported substantial reforms within the Member States, but rather than stimulating new innovations many RRPs have not dealt with structural challenges and only supported outstanding reforms that would have been carried out anyway. The scope of the RRPs has also varied considerably. While RRPs in Italy, Spain and Greece were ambitious targeting structural challenges of labour markets or tax systems, in northern Member States RRF funding is relatively small in comparison to GDP (less than 1%) and reforms played a minor role in their RRPs. Whereas the RRF financed measures to support employment, living standards and social protection, the funding was insufficient and too short-termed to drive a sustainable green and digital transformation. Inflation and supply shortages increased the costs of investment substantially, and the administrative workload undermined the distribution of funding and delayed the delivery of milestones and targets. We conclude in our article that due to the exclusion of subnational governments in the development of the RRPs in many Member States, the delivery of the RRPs was often inefficient and failed to meet local and regional priorities and needs.

Despite some shortcomings, we suggest that the legitimacy of European crisis governance rests on its ability to deal with complex, transnational issues to the satisfaction of the Member States rather than on its democratic credentials. Whereas this may not come as a big surprise, it is particularly significant to highlight that exceptional provisions introduced during crisis are subsequently adopted and normalised within future governance frameworks. While the Commission and Member States have empowered themselves, place-based principles and multilevel partnerships with subnational governments, which were strengthened during previous decades in areas such as Cohesion Policy, are currently under threat. In its proposal for the new Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, the Commission has adopted the RRF’s approach and seeks to maintain performance-based policy programmes and centralised planning with targets, milestones and structural reforms. This fosters exclusive top-down policymaking at the cost of inclusive bottom-up approaches. Two years of complex negotiations lie ahead, during which adjustments to budget items, the EU’s institutional design and the redistribution of power between the European, national and subnational levels are at stake. We do not know for sure yet what the outcome will be and to what extent it will be the legacy of the crisis.

Marius Guderjan is a Fellow at the Centre for British Studies at Humboldt-Universität Berlin, and used to work at the Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science at Freie Universität Berlin. His research interests include European integration, multilevel governance, intergovernmental relations and territorial politics; including the book Local Government in the European Union.

Website: https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/en/polwiss/forschung/systeme/polsystem/Team/Marius-Guderjan.html

Mario Kölling is Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Spanish National Distance Education University (UNED), Madrid, and Senior Researcher at the Fundación Manuel Giménez Abad. His research focuses on methodological issues related to territorial decentralisation and multilevel governance. He has published extensively on the European Union budget.

Website: https://www.uned.es/universidad/docentes/politicas-sociologia/mario-kolling.html

The post Legitimacy and legacy of the EU’s socio-economic crisis governance during Covid-19 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Togoville, l’âme du Togo, reste une ville historique et culturelle qui attire beaucoup de chercheurs et de touristes avec ses 10 000 habitants environ qu’elle abrite aujourd’hui.

From initial denials, through later partial acknowledgment and “legalization,” to rapid downsizing and eventual formal closure, the Chinese government’s handling of the re-education camps in Xinjiang suggests a series of unintended shifts.

Russia's Ministry of Finance has proposed legalizing online casinos, a move that could fundamentally reshape the country's gambling industry and bring significant new revenue into the federal budget. The initiative came from Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, who suggested that President Vladimir Putin consider lifting the current ban under strict state supervision. Strict Conditions for Legalization The Ministry of Finance proposes removing the ban on online casinos only if several conditions are met. The plan calls for the creation of a special operator by presidential decree, as well as a centralized system for accepting bets through the Unified Betting Transfer Accounting Center, modeled on the existing framework used by bookmakers. The proposal also includes a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on casino revenue, calculated after winnings are paid out. Operators would transfer this tax to the state budget on a monthly basis. Participation would be limited to players aged 21 and older.

Knapp ein Jahr ist Donald Trump jetzt Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Versprochen hatte er wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung durch seine "America first"-Politik. Bekommen haben die Menschen hohe Lebenshaltungskosten und einen wackeligen Finanzmarkt.

Nach den tödlichen Schüssen von Minneapolis wächst die Kritik am Vorgehen der US-Regierung. Die Politologin Laura von Daniels sieht einen Angriff auf die Zivilgesellschaft und Meinungsfreiheit in Amerika.

Durée de la vidéo : 90'

Clause de non-responsabilité : L'interprétation des débats facilite la communication mais ne constitue en aucun cas un enregistrement authentifié des débats. Seuls le discours original ou la traduction écrite révisée du discours original peuvent être considérés authentiques.
Source : © Union européenne, 2026 - PE

Dauer des Videos : 135'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

Length of video : 135'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Die Europäische Union und Indien haben ein umfassendes Freihandelsabkommen beschlossen. Welche Bedeutung das hat, kommentiert die Handelsexpertin des DIW Berlin, Sonali Chowdhry:

Das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der Europäischen Union und Indien ist von großer Bedeutung. Die bilaterale Partnerschaft gewinnt nach einem langen Verhandlungsprozess, der 2007 begann und wiederholt ins Stocken geriet, die nun dringend benötigte Dynamik. Indien wird bis 2026 voraussichtlich um 7,3 Prozent wachsen und in den kommenden Jahren zu einer der drei größten Volkswirtschaften der Welt aufsteigen. Die EU kann es sich kaum leisten, ihre Präsenz auf diesem Markt nicht auszubauen.

Das Abkommen baut auf den bilateralen Handelsbeziehungen zwischen der EU und Indien auf, die bereits mehr als 170.000 Käufer-Lieferanten-Beziehungen zwischen indischen und EU-Unternehmen umfassen. Durch den Abbau von Zöllen und anderen Handelshemmnissen in Schlüsselindustrien eröffnet das Abkommen EU-Exporteuren in vielen Sektoren wie Automobil, Maschinenbau und Getränken neue Möglichkeiten. Gleichzeitig wird sich der Marktzugang für indische Exporte wie Arzneimittel, IT-Dienstleistungen und Textilien verbessern.

Über diese unmittelbaren wirtschaftlichen Vorteile hinaus erfüllt das Abkommen eine weitere wichtige Funktion, die nicht unterschätzt werden sollte: Es ist eine Versicherungspolice in der derzeitigen unsicheren Lage. Denn die im Rahmen von Freihandelsabkommen eingegangenen Verpflichtungen sorgen für Transparenz und Vorhersehbarkeit im internationalen Handel und in der globalen Governance, die anderswo untergraben werden. Solche Freihandelsabkommen schützen das globale Handelssystem und verhindern, dass es in eine Spirale des Protektionismus gerät.

This study examines portrayals of marine mammal celebrities (MMCs) in popular culture over the past 70 years, reflecting evolving public attitudes toward ocean conservation. It identifies four main types of MMCs, each linked to a specific era and shaped by changes in media landscapes, perceptions of marine mammal agency and welfare, and conservation priorities: (1) Hollywood MMCs (ca. 1960–1990s)—wild animals captured and exhibited in aquaria, cast as celebrities based on their roles in traditional mass media (blockbuster movies); (2) MMCs in human care (ca. 1990s–2010s)—animals housed in aquaria whose fame stemmed from public concern about their welfare and calls for their release; (3) rescued MMCs (ca. 1980s–present)—marine mammals cared for by humans after they were injured in the ocean; and (4) endangered and dangerous MMCs (2010s–present)—wild animals that approach humans, demonstrate human‐like behaviours, or interact with boats. Introducing the method of “following the animal,” the article provides examples of celebrity animals that illustrate each of the four categories, such as the dolphin Flipper and the walrus Freya. The study contributes to the thematic issue on "Ocean Pop: Marine Imaginaries in the Age of Global Polycrisis" by highlighting the mutual influence of media, animal celebrity, and conservation, and urges further research into how shifting representations shape global engagement with marine life and the environment.

This study examines portrayals of marine mammal celebrities (MMCs) in popular culture over the past 70 years, reflecting evolving public attitudes toward ocean conservation. It identifies four main types of MMCs, each linked to a specific era and shaped by changes in media landscapes, perceptions of marine mammal agency and welfare, and conservation priorities: (1) Hollywood MMCs (ca. 1960–1990s)—wild animals captured and exhibited in aquaria, cast as celebrities based on their roles in traditional mass media (blockbuster movies); (2) MMCs in human care (ca. 1990s–2010s)—animals housed in aquaria whose fame stemmed from public concern about their welfare and calls for their release; (3) rescued MMCs (ca. 1980s–present)—marine mammals cared for by humans after they were injured in the ocean; and (4) endangered and dangerous MMCs (2010s–present)—wild animals that approach humans, demonstrate human‐like behaviours, or interact with boats. Introducing the method of “following the animal,” the article provides examples of celebrity animals that illustrate each of the four categories, such as the dolphin Flipper and the walrus Freya. The study contributes to the thematic issue on "Ocean Pop: Marine Imaginaries in the Age of Global Polycrisis" by highlighting the mutual influence of media, animal celebrity, and conservation, and urges further research into how shifting representations shape global engagement with marine life and the environment.

This study examines portrayals of marine mammal celebrities (MMCs) in popular culture over the past 70 years, reflecting evolving public attitudes toward ocean conservation. It identifies four main types of MMCs, each linked to a specific era and shaped by changes in media landscapes, perceptions of marine mammal agency and welfare, and conservation priorities: (1) Hollywood MMCs (ca. 1960–1990s)—wild animals captured and exhibited in aquaria, cast as celebrities based on their roles in traditional mass media (blockbuster movies); (2) MMCs in human care (ca. 1990s–2010s)—animals housed in aquaria whose fame stemmed from public concern about their welfare and calls for their release; (3) rescued MMCs (ca. 1980s–present)—marine mammals cared for by humans after they were injured in the ocean; and (4) endangered and dangerous MMCs (2010s–present)—wild animals that approach humans, demonstrate human‐like behaviours, or interact with boats. Introducing the method of “following the animal,” the article provides examples of celebrity animals that illustrate each of the four categories, such as the dolphin Flipper and the walrus Freya. The study contributes to the thematic issue on "Ocean Pop: Marine Imaginaries in the Age of Global Polycrisis" by highlighting the mutual influence of media, animal celebrity, and conservation, and urges further research into how shifting representations shape global engagement with marine life and the environment.

Written by Saša Butorac.

CONTEXT

Expansion and modernisation of the energy infrastructure in Member States is one of the key challenges of the ongoing energy transition in the EU. The electricity grids need to develop in order to ensure the security of energy supply, increase the resilience of Europe’s energy system, and integrate the rapid roll-out of renewable energy sources, particularly at the distribution level. Given the peristent challenges relating to permit-granting procedures and delays in grid connection approvals at the national level, on 10 December 2025 the European Commission published the European grids package.

Along with the Commission proposal to introduce a new framework on the trans-European energy infrastructure guidelines, the proposal on acceleration of permit-granting procedures forms the core part of the grids package. It seeks to introduce a coherent regulatory framework at the EU level that addresses key challenges to a timely and cost-efficient development and upgrade of the transmission and distribution grids, storage, recharging stations and renewable energy projects. Major hurdles addressed in the proposal are incoherent administrative systems, lack of resources in national competent authorities, the complex nature of environmental impact assesments, the lack of public acceptance, the limited digitalisation of the procedures and data availability, as well as various judicial challenges.

Legislative proposal

2025/0400(COD) – Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives (EU) 2018/2001, (EU) 2019/944, (EU) 2024/1788 as regards acceleration of permit-granting procedures – COM(2025) 1007, 10.12.2025.

NEXT STEPS IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

For the latest developments in this legislative procedure, see the Legislative Train Schedule:2025/0400(COD)

Read the complete briefing on ‘Acceleration of permit-granting procedures‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The emerging global system is one in which three nuclear-armed leaders, insulated from dissent, pursue risky gambits. The result will not be the relatively stable if tense competition that characterized the Cold War. It will be something more volatile: a world in which the most consequential decisions rest on the whims of men who have systematically discarded anyone willing to tell them no.

The emerging global system is one in which three nuclear-armed leaders, insulated from dissent, pursue risky gambits. The result will not be the relatively stable if tense competition that characterized the Cold War. It will be something more volatile: a world in which the most consequential decisions rest on the whims of men who have systematically discarded anyone willing to tell them no.

The emerging global system is one in which three nuclear-armed leaders, insulated from dissent, pursue risky gambits. The result will not be the relatively stable if tense competition that characterized the Cold War. It will be something more volatile: a world in which the most consequential decisions rest on the whims of men who have systematically discarded anyone willing to tell them no.