{"title":"欧洲议会的紧缩及其替代方案:从欧元区危机到新冠肺炎危机","authors":"Anna Elomäki","doi":"10.1057/s41295-023-00363-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the role of the European parliament (EP) in providing ideational alternatives to austerity in the context of the Eurozone crisis and the COVID-19 crisis. Despite the EP’s limited formal role in EU economic governance, it is a key site for democratic debate and contestation. Analyzing EP debates about austerity allows us to understand the possibilities and limitations for ideational change at the EU level from the perspective of supranational party politics. Through a longitudinal analysis (2012–2021) of EP resolutions on the European Commission’s Annual Growth Surveys, the article asks how ideational battles around austerity have unfolded between the EP’s political groups and what factors have shaped the EP’s positions. Theoretically, the article draws on the literature on ideational political economy and discoursive institutionalism. The article argues that instead of providing alternatives, the EP and its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have contributed to the ideational hold of austerity due to the weakness of the alternatives of the center-left and their compatibility with austerity. Party-political and institutional factors, such as broad left/right compromises and a strict division of labor between the EP’s committees, further constrain ideational change.","PeriodicalId":51590,"journal":{"name":"Comparative European Politics","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Austerity and its alternatives in the European parliament: from the Eurozone crisis to the COVID-19 crisis\",\"authors\":\"Anna Elomäki\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41295-023-00363-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article examines the role of the European parliament (EP) in providing ideational alternatives to austerity in the context of the Eurozone crisis and the COVID-19 crisis. Despite the EP’s limited formal role in EU economic governance, it is a key site for democratic debate and contestation. Analyzing EP debates about austerity allows us to understand the possibilities and limitations for ideational change at the EU level from the perspective of supranational party politics. Through a longitudinal analysis (2012–2021) of EP resolutions on the European Commission’s Annual Growth Surveys, the article asks how ideational battles around austerity have unfolded between the EP’s political groups and what factors have shaped the EP’s positions. Theoretically, the article draws on the literature on ideational political economy and discoursive institutionalism. The article argues that instead of providing alternatives, the EP and its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have contributed to the ideational hold of austerity due to the weakness of the alternatives of the center-left and their compatibility with austerity. Party-political and institutional factors, such as broad left/right compromises and a strict division of labor between the EP’s committees, further constrain ideational change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51590,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative European Politics\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative European Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-023-00363-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Comparative European Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-023-00363-3","RegionNum":3,"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: 0
摘要
本文探讨了欧洲议会(EP)在欧元区危机和2019冠状病毒病危机背景下为紧缩政策提供替代方案的作用。尽管欧洲议会在欧盟经济治理中的正式作用有限,但它是民主辩论和争论的关键场所。分析欧洲议会关于紧缩政策的辩论,使我们能够从超国家政党政治的角度理解欧盟层面观念变革的可能性和局限性。通过对欧盟委员会年度增长调查中欧洲议会决议的纵向分析(2012-2021),本文探讨了欧洲议会政治团体之间围绕紧缩政策的思想斗争是如何展开的,以及哪些因素塑造了欧洲议会的立场。理论上,本文借鉴了思想政治经济学和话语制度主义的相关文献。本文认为,欧洲议会及其经济和货币事务委员会(Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs)没有提供替代方案,而是助长了紧缩政策的观念,因为中左翼替代方案的弱点及其与紧缩政策的兼容性。政党政治和制度因素,如广泛的左右妥协和欧洲议会委员会之间的严格分工,进一步限制了观念的变化。
Austerity and its alternatives in the European parliament: from the Eurozone crisis to the COVID-19 crisis
Abstract This article examines the role of the European parliament (EP) in providing ideational alternatives to austerity in the context of the Eurozone crisis and the COVID-19 crisis. Despite the EP’s limited formal role in EU economic governance, it is a key site for democratic debate and contestation. Analyzing EP debates about austerity allows us to understand the possibilities and limitations for ideational change at the EU level from the perspective of supranational party politics. Through a longitudinal analysis (2012–2021) of EP resolutions on the European Commission’s Annual Growth Surveys, the article asks how ideational battles around austerity have unfolded between the EP’s political groups and what factors have shaped the EP’s positions. Theoretically, the article draws on the literature on ideational political economy and discoursive institutionalism. The article argues that instead of providing alternatives, the EP and its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have contributed to the ideational hold of austerity due to the weakness of the alternatives of the center-left and their compatibility with austerity. Party-political and institutional factors, such as broad left/right compromises and a strict division of labor between the EP’s committees, further constrain ideational change.
期刊介绍:
Comparative European Politics (CEP) arises out of a unique editorial partnership linking political scientists in Europe and North America. CEP defines its scope broadly to include the comparative politics and political economy of the whole of contemporary Europe within and beyond the European Union, the processes of European integration and enlargement and the place of Europe and European states within international/global political and economic dynamics.
As the most regionally integrated political and economic space within the global system, Europe presents a particular opportunity to political scientists to explore the dynamic relationship between transnational, international and domestic processes and practices. The editors welcome original theoretical, empirical and theoretically-informed pieces which deal with these relationships.
Such issues pose awkward questions about the limitations of existing disciplinary perspectives and theoretical conventions, requiring theoretical and methodological innovation and an ability to develop genuinely interdisciplinary approaches. CEP aims to publish exceptional work prepared to rise to this challenge.
The journal is rigorously peer-reviewed. It neither reflects nor represents any particular school or approach, nor does it restrict itself to particular methodologies or theoretical perspectives. Rather, whilst promoting interdisciplinarity and a greater dialogue between the various sub-disciplines of European political analysis, Comparative European Politics publishes the best and most original work in the field. It publishes substantial articles marking either core empirical developments, theoretical innovation or, preferably, both. The journal particularly encourages pieces which seek to develop the link between substantive empirical investigations and theoretical elaboration and those which transcend the artificial separation of domestic, comparative and international analysis. The editors publish a limited number of debate pieces and review articles related to issues of contemporary theoretical and empirical controversy. Whether solicited or unsolicited these are exposed to the same exacting process of peer review.