As part of her Marie Curie Fellowship, Dr Maria Patrin is investigating the new modes of governance that the EU is employing since the pandemic and assesses their advantages and risks. In our interview, she explains what instruments and areas she is looking at, how the Jacques Delors Centre supports her research and what results surprised her the most.
What is the “Residual executive power” project about?
The project is called “Residual executive power” because I think that the COVID-19 pandemic led to a strengthening of the executive power of the European Commission in a somehow unintentional way. The starting point of the project is the observation that, during the pandemic, and even after the pandemic, new ways of governance have emerged that have partially changed the way in which the EU works and decides – and that are drifting away from common and normal decision-making practices.
The idea behind the project is to try to understand the impact of these changes on the EU’s legal and political order, but more specifically on the relationship between the EU and its member states – as well as on the shifting power balance between institutions.
What would be an example of the issues you are investigating?
NextGenerationEU is perhaps the most visible example of an instrument that was adopted during the crisis which allowed the EU to borrow money on the financial markets and distribute it to the member states, enhancing the distributive role of the EU.
Another good example would be the transformation of cohesion policy, which was used as one of the legal bases for NextGenEU. In the current proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the Commission is basically proposing to put together the funding for cohesion and agriculture into a single pot, managed through national plans. And that’s clearly a legacy of NextGenEU.
Yet, this new use of cohesion also very much impacts on its original objectives and purposes as a form of regional socio-economic policy and transforms it into something which is way more centralized in the relationship between the executives. Obviously, this is just a proposal, but if this goes through, it shows how the evolution of institutions and practices can have long-lasting effects.
The COVID-19 pandemic affected everyone globally – what makes its impact on EU regulation and the institutional balance so interesting?
The pandemic is a good example of the capacity and ability of the legal system to adapt to unprecedented changes. To face the pandemic, we had to find a solution. And it was found within the EU’s existing legal framework, agreed upon by all member states, with instruments of EU law. This is what we need, thes capacity of the system to adapt. Without it, the EU would be powerless in the face of new challenges.
Yet, because of the multilevel legal system and also because it has become so difficult – almost impossible – to change the treaties, we are always using existing instruments in new ways. Those instruments are repeatedly leveraged beyond their purposes. And this has consequences in terms of legitimacy, for instance.
What surprised you the most in your research so far?
My project has shifted a little bit during the first year, because the importance of the budget became more prominent. What surprised me at some point was this focus on money: Suddenly, everybody was very interested in the EU budget, in EU funding, in cohesion policies. Which is indeed interesting, but there was barely any research before.
The fact that the EU was giving out so much money to member states changed the way in which these member states approached the EU. I come from Italy, for instance, which is the biggest beneficiary of NextGenEU money. And I could really see how this changed the political discourse in Italy. Even traditionally Euro-sceptic, far-right parties such as Meloni’s party shifted the political discourse towards a way more Euro-friendly tone. Italy could not afford to give up on all this money, so NextGenEU fostered a more cooperative way of looking at the EU.
What impact do you hope your project will have?
First and foremost, I hope that my project can contribute to understanding better how things have changed, but also that these evolutions and transformations in EU governance need an adaptation of the way we think of the EU and of the relationship to its member states. Of course, it is good that changes happen, that the system can adapt, that the legal framework has the tools to face new challenges.
However, these changes can happen by stealth or through the back door, and it is politically very difficult to think of a treaty revision. Competence shifts at the EU level are often happening away from public scrutiny. And this requires to carefully rethinking how these changing tools are grafted and function.
How does the project connect to your Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowship?
Basically, the project is the Marie Curie Fellowship, in the sense that I would not be able to do it without the fellowship – not only for the financial support, but for the conditions that it provides. I came to the Jacques Delors Centre thanks to the fellowship, and here I have an interdisciplinary community around me that stimulates me.
In the end, it’s about giving early career scholars the condition to do quality research, and the environment here is perfect. I work with Mark Dawson on this project, and we share not only a research interest, but also an approach to how to study law. This is nurtured more generally by the whole community and by the fact that there are regular opportunities for exchanges:
You’re welcome to be part of the research community. And the think tank allows you to be anchored in the policy debate, which is fundamental for a project like mine, which is so policy related.