Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies最新文献

Trading actors like the European Union (EU) are increasingly seen as geopoliticising trade policy, but such assertions may not capture the extent to which the Directorate General for Trade (DG Trade) uses this policy to achieve security objectives. This article investigates changes over time in justifications for trade policy by differentiating between how the EU and DG Trade use frames – articulated in four EU trade strategies with two DG Trade strategic plans and 10 annual management plans – to propose solutions in response to the geoeconomic turn. This article finds that, whilst DG Trade's discourse continues to reflect the dominant market liberal frame, geopoliticising pressures are encouraging the emergence of an EU counter-frame linking trade to non-trade issues and a reframing of the counter-frame that increasingly links trade and security policy. As a result, the EU's framing of trade policy resembles deep geopoliticisation, whilst DG Trade's framing resembles reluctant geopoliticisation.

The nature of global economic interactions is undergoing profound changes. Rising concerns over the security and strategic implications of economic interdependence are leading to what is often defined as a ‘geoeconomic world order’. In framing this Special Issue, this article sets a common conceptual ground to assess whether, how and why the single European market is experiencing such a geoeconomic turn and how EU responses are shaping other international actors in the process. It develops a research agenda to examine (i) the systemic pressures pushing towards geoeconomic responses, (ii) the internal drivers and processes determining the nature of the EU's geoeconomic turn (what we term ‘shades of geopoliticisation’) and (iii) the external consequences of the EU's embrace of geoeconomics. The analytical discussion is complemented by an overview of empirical trends, drawing examples from the various fields of market integration and European policy-making covered in the contributions to this Special Issue.

This contribution to the symposium explores one aspect of the arrival of planetary politics under the broad label of the third democratic transformation, a transformation unfolding now at all levels of governance, from the local to the global through the regional, in spite of the anti-democratic forces at play around the world. This article starts by exploring the new frontier of normative power Europe in a post-colonial key, arguing that the European Union can serve as a laboratory for such a democratic transformation, around four interrogations related to claims of decentring, doubting, experimenting and decolonising. It then offers a descriptive-normative typology of the core attributes of the third democratic transformation observable in numerous signs and practices both in Europe and around the world through a sixfold evolution, namely, trans-temporal, transnational, trans-modal, trans-local, trans-scalar and, across all these, translational. It concludes on the conditions of possibility for this transformation.

Spendzharova, A. (2023) Gouvernement Économique, but Not Like in the 1990s: The Commission and the ECB's Policies Advancing the ‘Green Transition’. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 61: 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13541

[… and NGEU accounts for €806.9 million to supplement the regular EU budget. Furthermore, NGEU funding has been earmarked to top up the following MFF budgetary headings (in order of magnitude of the contribution): ‘Cohesion, Resilience and Values’ – €426.7 million (+ €776.5 from NGEU); ‘Natural Resources and Environment’ – €401 million (+ 18.9 from NGEU); and ‘Single Market, Innovation and Digital’ – €149.5 (+ €11.5 from NGEU).]

In the two sentences above ‘million’ should be ‘billion’, and the sentences should read:

‘… and NGEU accounts for €806.9 billion to supplement the regular EU budget. Furthermore, NGEU funding has been earmarked to top up the following MFF budgetary headings (in order of magnitude of the contribution): ‘Cohesion, Resilience and Values' – €426.7 billion (+ €776.5 billion from NGEU); ‘Natural Resources and Environment’ – €401 billion (+ 18.9 billion from NGEU); and ‘Single Market, Innovation and Digital’ – €149.5 billion (+ €11.5 billion from NGEU).’

We apologize for this error.