OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022)
160
THE EUROPEAN UNION'S RECOVERY AND RESILIENCE FUND, IN THE CONTEXT
OF THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION PROJECT AND ITS FUTURE PROSPECTS
FILIPE GUERRA
filipe.guerra@ua.pt
Jurist. Master's student in the course of Public Administration and Management and of PhD in
Public Policies, in the Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences of the University of
Aveiro (Portugal). Post-Graduate in Labour Law by the Institute of Labour and Company Law of
the Faculty of Law of the University of Coimbra and also holds a degree in Law from the Lusíada
University of Porto.
Abstract
Throughout its history, the process of European integration has been shaped by successive
stages of transfer of competences and powers from the Member States to the European Union
and its institutions. At the same time, and with progressively shorter latency periods, several
moments of crisis in the integration process were recorded. Of these crises, the financial crisis
that began in 2008 was of particular importance, demonstrating the difficulties in reaching
consensus and the fragmentation of interests within the European integration process.
This article aims to make a historical revisitation of several crisis moments in the European
integration process, with special attention to the past sovereign debt and Eurozone crises.
From this exposition, an argument is made about the susceptibility of fragmentation of
interests within the European Union, what are the causes and consequences of this
fragmentation and how this was reproduced throughout 2020 in the construction of the
Recovery and Resilience Fund, launched by the European Union in response to the crisis
triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic. Additionally, a diverse set of perspectives on the
Resilience and Recovery Fund and its relevance in the framework of the continuity of the
European integration process is presented.
Finally, we conclude that the European integration process is once again marked by the
strengthening of its political agenda and by recent signs of adaptation of the European Union
institutions to the management of constant crisis cycles, allowing the integration process to
continue.
Keywords
European Union, Resilience and Recovery Fund, Integration, Crisis, COVID-19.
How to cite this article
Guerra, Filipe (2021). The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund, in the context of
the European integration project and its future prospects. Janus.net, e-journal of international
relations. Vol12, Nº. 2, November 2021-April 2022. Consulted [online] on the date of the last
visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.12.2.10
Article received on March 31, 2021 and accepted for publication on September 7, 2021
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
161
THE EUROPEAN UNION'S RECOVERY AND RESILIENCE FUND, IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION PROJECT AND
ITS FUTURE PROSPECTS
1
FILIPE GUERRA
Introduction
From a geographical point of view, the European integration process is composed of
successive enlargements to new member states, thus incorporating a growing
diversification of national realities and new sub-regional scales with different levels of
development.
Throughout its history, the integration process has faced several moments of crisis,
exposing growing asymmetries and divergences of interests, with emphasis on the Brexit
process, which led to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union (EU), a
precedent never before experienced.
The health crisis generated by the Covid-19 pandemic, starting in early 2020, within
weeks reached all EU countries. However, the impacts of this crisis, were not the same
in all Member States, not only from the health point of view, but also in terms of its
effects on national economies. In this context, the pre-pandemic economic conditions of
the member states and their resilience to various types of crises were some of the
elements that created relevant differences.
Faced with the political and legal framework of the EU, to which the Member States have
freely surrendered, and with a crisis that, although on different scales and dimensions,
has affected everyone, the European institutions have begun to construct an economic
plan for the rapid recovery of national economies. However, early on, in the various
negotiating arenas, various fundamental disagreements were found as to its constitution,
with the repetition of disagreements already expressed in previous crises, namely from
2008 onwards.
Throughout 2020, the EU showed signs of fragmentation, including the constitution and
political solidification of national blocs with divergent interests within its institutions.
Despite the health and economic emergency, only at the end of 2020 did the EU reach a
final agreement between its institutions and the Member States, through a negotiation
with a joint solution between the Recovery and Resilience Fund and the Multiannual
Financial Framework 2021-2027.
This article initially presents the founding aspects of the previous political and financial
crises, what their economic and political consequences were and how these were
1
Article translated by Cláudia Tavares.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
162
projected into the negotiations of the Resilience and Recovery Fund. Next, the main
negotiating divergences and key moments throughout 2020 are observed, as well as the
characteristics and expectations about the future of the Recovery and Resilience Fund.
And finally, we point out the changes and policy differences adopted by the EU in the
resolution of crises, which signs of transformation can be observed at present and their
relevance in the context of continuity of the European integration process.
Theoretical framework: lessons from the Eurozone crisis and its
projection in 2020
Alongside the successive enlargements with new Member States and the strengthening
of the powers of its institutions, the European integration process around the EU has at
the same time been marked by several moments of divergence and tension between
Member States. Over the decades these tensions have been frequent, but it has been
recorded that latency periods between crises are progressively shorter. Since 2008, there
have been four particularly visible moments of crisis, namely the Eurozone crisis, the
migration crisis, the Brexit process, and so-called illiberalism (Hooghe & Marks, 2019).
The crisis surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic throughout 2020 in the EU has produced
consequences on several levels, highlighting its health, economic and social impacts. The
capacity of the EU institutions to solve the set of problems triggered by the pandemic
crisis would be a new test of the resilience of its institutions, of its capacity to build
consensus and common solutions, towards the continuation of the integration process.
From an economic, political and social point of view, the so-called Eurozone crisis in 2008
had left important consequences and set an unpleasant political precedent. It was now
important to recognise whether the EU could develop a different economic crisis
resolution.
The Euro Zone crisis in 2008 was triggered after the successive collapses of various
financial institutions in the USA, starting with the notorious Lehman Brothers case. From
these collapses, on the other side of the Atlantic, and the exposure of European banks to
this crisis, a sovereign debt crisis was created, to the extent that some EU Member States
did not have the necessary liquidity to save their banking systems, thus requiring
external assistance (Glencross, 2014).
Against this background, in the so-called sovereign debt market, some southern states,
such as Greece, Spain, Portugal (and Ireland), became debtors, while the central states
became creditors, insofar as they allowed the debtor states to continue to be financed in
the sovereign debt market (Grauwe, 2016). However, the creditor states imposed as a
counterpart to their financial assistance, the imposition of domestic austerity measures
on the debtor states, as a guarantee of repayment of the amounts borrowed (Grauwe,
2016).
In this process, the European Commission did not remain equidistant, accepting to
become an agent of political pressure in defence of the creditor countries, pressuring the
debtor countries to take austerity measures and the so-called structural reforms
(Grauwe, 2016). The solution found and its political construction, with different
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
163
institutional levels, constituted a combination of intergovernmental coordination and
supranational hierarchy (Börzel, 2016).
The impact of austerity measures, such as the increase in unemployment or the cuts in
pension systems, in debtor countries, has led to strong public opposition, which has had
immediate political effects, namely electoral, with the rise of populist and Eurosceptic
movements, among other extremist parties. Large sections of the electorates in debtor
countries blamed the EU for austerity measures and their effects (Ceballos, 2015). In
short, the 2008 crisis, demonstrated a correspondence, between the effects of the
policies pursued from the EU institutions, their nature and their impact on the lives of
citizens, and the evidence of solidarity between member states, with the acceptance of
the European integration process.
The economic crises from 2008 and in 2020, even though at their origins they are
completely different in nature, with regard to the issues and the negotiating blocks
formed, which resulted in negotiating divergences, have some relevant similarities,
although in the projection of their conclusion there are significant differences.
Within the scope of the similarities between crises, to which reference was made, the
way in which these periods of crisis exposed the profound asymmetries existing between
the economies of the member states and the respective political interests, on the one
hand, and, on the other, the visible susceptibility to division between member states in
the EU institutions, with a tendency towards the formation of negotiating blocs defending
disparate interests and with different proposals. The EU currently seems to have
structural differences, which nevertheless reveal a strong interdependence between
member states.
The 2008 crisis and the solutions found, namely with the imposition of austerity measures
on debtor countries, had set precedents as to the form and content of its resolution,
resulting in a serious political crisis, with signs of discontent in the continuity of the
integration process. The risk of a possible repetition in 2020 of the solutions and formulas
of the past was posed by the Covid-19 pandemic crisis. In this context, the question was
whether there would be a repetition of policies or whether the EU had understood the
potential disruptive consequences of its solutions in deepening its integration process.
Important political figures in 2020 were also present in the 2008 policy definitions, such
as Christine Lagarde, current President of the European Central Bank, or Angela Merkel,
Chancellor of Germany.
Methodology
This article was carried out through the attention dedicated to a multiplicity of sources,
seeking to ensure their multidisciplinarity, analytical diversity and reliability. In this
sense, a survey of data was carried out based on statements and publications of
representatives of the EU and its Member States, collected through the certified and
official websites of the EU institutions. In other cases, the collection was carried out from
reproductions published in various media and news agencies of international reference,
preferably specialised in matters of politics, economics and the EU. This collection was
carried out throughout the years 2020 and 2021.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
164
The search for academic literature, for the literature review, sought to focus on
publications whose analysis focused on matters related to the European integration
process, the European integration crises, the Eurozone and sovereign debt crisis, the
Recovery and Resilience Fund and the Covid-19 pandemic crisis. In this sense, we
selected a set of publications that presented varied perspectives, seeking greater
analytical and multidisciplinary breadth and variety, in which cases of analytical
complementarity were also found. Most of the selected sources, in terms of authors and
place of publication, are of European origin. In this search and selection exercise, we also
sought to include the most recent publications, with the final selection being
representative of the period between 2014 and 2021.
The Recovery and Resilience Plan: characterisation
Throughout the year 2020, the European institutions faced the need to sustain the severe
economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. The 2020 crisis was delivering the
biggest shock to the European economy since World War II, in the words of Christine
Lagarde (2020). The EU should rise to the occasion, and the response that the EU would
be able to give to the serious crisis would be a responsibility, the failure of which could
represent a potential existential crisis (Ladi & Tsarouhas, 2020).
Faced with the political centrality of the health crisis, and in national health systems, the
EU institutions initiated in the first quarter of the year the first steps to counteract the
growing crisis, which was already affecting the economies of the Member States. Thus,
on 26 March 2020, an envelope of 37 billion euros, was approved in the European
Parliament, from amounts reallocated from appropriations for structural funds and other
cofinancing where unspent (European Parliament, 2020a). But given the scale of the
crisis much more would be needed and negotiations began at the highest level for the
formation of a major post-crisis recovery plan.
At the end of the extraordinary summit of heads of state on 26 March, the outlook was
not encouraging. Member states were divided on the launch of European debt securities
(so-called "coronabonds") and the nature of other possible financial instruments (Siza &
Aníbal, 2020). The political climate was very tense and potentially discordant, as
evidenced by the statements made by the Portuguese Prime Minister, António Costa, in
response to the Dutch proposal for an investigation into the budgetary conditions of the
southern countries, not hesitating to consider that "such a statement is repugnant within
the framework of a European Union. And that's just the expression: repugnant (...)
nobody wants to listen to Dutch finance ministers again, as we heard in 2008, 2009,
2010" (O'Leary, 2020). The reference to the 2008 crisis and its divisions was evident.
Days after this summit, Pedro Sanchez, Prime Minister of Spain, a country hit hard by
the pandemic crisis, published a clear article in several European newspapers on the
magnitude of the crisis and the relevance of what was at stake, linking European
solidarity with the need for cohesion, arguing that without this cohesion the credibility of
the European project would be compromised (Sanchez, 2020). The EU needed to find
solutions that would ensure its bonds of solidarity.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
165
On 18 May, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, leaders of the so-called Franco-
German axis, held an important meeting with a view to the EU's future response to the
crisis. From this moment came the proposal to establish a fund consisting of 500 billion
euros, to be distributed among member states, and to be reimbursed in the future
(Boffey, 2020). This meeting and the respective conclusions were particularly relevant
because they revealed a strategy of economic governance different from the one followed
in the 2008 crisis, through a financial exit common to all Member States, using a
"Recovery Fund" (Bundesregierung, 2020).
The European Commission's proposal for the Recovery Fund, presented on 27 May,
reproduced the essence of the Franco-German proposal, but increased its figures to 750
billion, divided between grants and loans, to be made possible through an EU loan from
the financial markets, and made possible through a new own resources ceiling, on a
temporary basis, of 2.00% of the EU's gross national income (European Commission,
2020a). The EU seemed to have understood that, unlike the solution adopted for the
Eurozone crisis, loans are not sufficient to stabilise crisis situations, carrying significant
potential for divergence between nations, parallel to their asymmetries.
Even so, several countries were not satisfied with this European Commission proposal,
in particular the so-called "frugals" - the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark -
which did not shy away from issuing several public statements of disagreement in the
days and weeks that followed. Among its main reasons were the considered excessive
weight of its contributions (Euroactiv, 2020), the haste in negotiations (Reuters, 2020),
the excessive disproportion of grants over loans (Lovfen, 2020), or the absence of
necessary structural reforms in assisted countries (Politico, 2020). Their discordant
stance imposed the continuity of negotiations and recalled some demands of the creditor
countries during the Eurozone crisis.
After intense negotiations, on 21 July, the President of the Council, Charles Mitchell,
announced "we did it" (Herszenhorn & Bayer, 2020). There would be agreement on the
Recovery and Resilience Fund, negotiated in parallel with the Multiannual Financial
Framework 2021-2027, presenting itself as providing 750 billion euros, distributed
between 390 billion in grants and 360 billion in loans, integrated in an overall package of
1824.3 billion euros, called 'Next Generation EU'. The result of this programme was that
the so-called frugals also achieved some victories on their agenda, such as the reduction
of the amount initially foreseen for subsidies or the extension to themselves of the rebate
mechanism (which allows for the reduction of contributions to the Community Budget),
among other aspects (European Council, 2020a).
The following months saw new rounds of negotiations on the Resilience and Recovery
Fund and the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, with difficulties in reaching
agreement between the European Council and the European Parliament, particularly on
new sources of revenue and financing, on the payment of interest (whether to be
allocated inside or outside the Community budget) or on the funds allocated to various
Community programmes. Difficulties only overcome on 10 November (European Council,
2020b).
The process of approving the Recovery and Resilience Fund and the Multiannual Financial
Framework 2021-2027 (their joint negotiation had created a reciprocal dependency)
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
166
would still experience new difficulties at the end of the year, with the so-called illiberal
member states (Hungary and Poland) obstructing their final approval due to the defence
mechanism of the rule of law (Struczewski, 2020). This was a mechanism that
conditioned the access to community funds to the verification of the protection of the
rule of law, in matters such as the independence of the judicial systems. After weeks of
negotiations, which included public accusations that were not very favourable to Hungary
and Poland (Hall, 2020) and even references to the exclusion of these countries in the
ongoing process (Baume & Burchard, 2020), it was possible to reach an agreement by
resorting to a delay in the implementation of this mechanism. Thus, both parties seemed
satisfied (Bayer, 2020).
The eventual final failure of the negotiations, and the EU's inability to act in unity at a
time of serious crisis, could have a high cost on the continuity of the integration process,
and the EU could find itself caught between reform and even dissolution (Celi et al.,
2020).
Over the months, successive negotiations in various arenas revealed the EU's
susceptibility to the constitution of blocs of countries within its institutions, according to
their respective interests and which to a large extent reflect the previous tensions and
different agendas, already known from 2008. In 2020, there was also the affirmation of
a new bloc typology, namely the group of so-called illiberals. On the other hand, and
significantly, there was a different typology of EU approach to the crisis, apparently
driven by the Franco-German axis.
Recovery and Resilience Plan: a reaction to crisis in structural design
The economic crisis, triggered by the pandemic COVID-19, has affected individual
Member States, but not all of them in the same way, with significant differences in
impact. Among several factors contributing to this asymmetry, one can highlight the
different levels of confinement and economic and social restrictions imposed by
countries; the greater losses in economies more dependent on services and tourism; the
greater impact in countries with a higher level of indebtedness and therefore less capacity
to take fiscal or debt measures with the markets; or even the different quality and
effectiveness of the response of national governments (Sapir, 2020). We can also
mention that the different impacts of the pandemic on health systems is another relevant
factor.
According to data presented by André Sapir (2020), the impact of the pandemic on
Member States' GDP was particularly significant in Croatia (-13.4%), Spain (-12.5%),
Ireland (-12.1%), France (-11.7%) and Italy (-11.5%). While countries like Sweden,
Denmark, Germany, Finland and Poland were the least affected. From these data, one
can therefore foresee different needs for aid.
The Recovery and Resilience Mechanism presented as the central axis of the 'Next
Generation EU' programme, has EUR 672.5 billion available, of which EUR 360 billion is
loans and EUR 312.5 billion in grants, according to the conclusions of the European
Council of 21 July 2020 (European Council, 2020c). According to different analyses, the
main beneficiaries of the 'Next Generation EU' programme will be the countries of
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
167
Southern and Eastern Europe (Alcidi & Gros, 2020) and this mechanism can thus
contribute to the reduction of economic asymmetries between Member States (Watzka &
Watt, 2020).
According to Watzka and Watt (2020), if the destination of the funds serves to finance
public investment (as is planned), several consequences can be expected, among which
are: an increase in public capital stocks throughout the EU area, especially in Southern
and Eastern countries; a decrease in economic asymmetries; as a consequence of the
increase in GDP, public debt ratios will tend to fall; and finally, in the countries most
affected by the crisis, the plan may compensate for productive losses in the pandemic.
In other words, a redistributive character of this project can be detected, in the sense
that it benefits the less developed countries. This aspect also indirectly benefits stronger
economies, such as Germany, which also need economic stability from member states
for their export markets.
The policy of redistribution between countries, based on a combination of subsidies and
loans, in addition to combating asymmetries between Member States (which had not
happened before), strengthens the legitimacy of the EU and its institutions by
contributing to greater economic and social cohesion.
Access to the funds allocated to the Recovery and Resilience Mechanism by the Member
States is conditional on the presentation of their national recovery plans, which must
correspond to the various criteria presented by the European Commission, and to which
they must be submitted, normally by the end of April 2021, subject to subsequent final
approval by the European Council (European Council, 2021). The respective payments
will be made according to the fulfilment of various objectives and may be interrupted if
these objectives are not met. Moreover, this conditioning and possibility of interrupting
payments was one of the victories obtained in the negotiation rounds, led in large part
by the so-called group of frugals (the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Sweden).
However, the financial availability of this stimulus and its practical implementation are
not linear, entailing some risks of failure, highlighting at least two difficulties. On the one
hand, as the allocation of funds is planned for the period between 2021 and 2023, and
their disbursement until 2026, it is still unknown how they will be distributed over time
(Watzka & Watt, 2020), on the other hand, the different levels of absorption capacity for
European funds by the Member States should be considered, as in the disparity observed
between Estonia's absorption rate of 95% and Croatia's of only 48%. In this way, there
are also significant asymmetries which jeopardise the usefulness of the plan (Darvas,
2020).
Thus, there are two types of risk that may arise, the first related to the traditional
slowness of absorption of structural and investment funds by the States, and the second
due to the limits in the capacity of national governments to channel large sums of public
money (Alcidi & Gros, 2020). It will be a challenge for many Member States to deal
simultaneously with the rapid implementation of such significant amounts, and also, from
the Community perspective, a significant risk of losing the opportunity to affirm its
project.
The traditional operationalisation of community programmes always requires definition,
approval and implementation procedures, which tend to be lengthy and prolonged
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
168
(Darvas, 2020), and this mechanism is no exception. This will be a difficulty whose
rapidity to overcome will be crucial for its effectiveness at a time of crisis that will require
effective and equally rapid responses, under penalty of frustration and discontent in the
neediest economies and in public opinion expectant after media and hopeful
announcements.
On the other hand, it could always be argued that financial markets could help solve this
problem of speed by providing immediate loans to countries, thus avoiding, or reducing,
recourse to loans later. However, this possibility does not obviate the need for quick
procedures and payments given the magnitude of the economic crisis in member states
(Darvas, 2020).
Access to the funds of this new instrument is also subject to a set of options and
objectives predefined by the European Commission (European Commission, 2020b),
which are much more ambitious than a response strictly directed to the challenges posed
by the pandemic, corresponding in their discretion to a set of objectives of strategic
importance for the political and economic stability of the EU (Alcidi & Gros, 2020). It is
difficult to observe a direct relationship between the "fight against climate change" or the
"digital transition" as immediate responses to the increase in unemployment related to
the economic shock waves triggered by the pandemic. Based on this apparent duality of
objectives, a clear definition of the real possibilities and criteria for directing funds
becomes more complex.
According to Iain Begg (2021), the EU is witnessing a reassertion of its industrial policies
and a paradigm shift towards market liberalisation, in line with the more recent past.
Among other potentially explanatory elements for this paradigm shift are concerns about
low growth rates in the EU, the growing role of China and Europe's loss of influence, or
technological and productive changes in fields such as automation or digitalisation. The
Recovery and Resilience Plan seeks to provide responses to these and other
contemporary problems, such as climate change. Reflecting these concerns, there is
increasing visibility of the term "strategic autonomy" in the European discourse.
The 'Next Generation EU' programme is still mistrusted because it focuses its funding on
national regeneration programmes and their infrastructure, lacking a long-term
perspective of investment on a European scale, with a broader view of all the Member
States and not only of successive national levels (Watzka & Watt, 2020).
The Plan and the Future of Integration in the European Union
According to Charles Michel, President of the European Council, when presenting his
proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework and recovery package, "the objectives
of our recovery can be summed up in three words: convergence, resilience and
transformation. More concretely this means: repairing the damage caused by Covid-19,
reforming our economies and reshaping our societies" (European Council, 2020d).
Charles Michel's statements convey the idea that his proposal is not only aimed at
repairing the damage caused by Covid-19, there are much higher goals with future,
economic and social implications. Thus, given the size of the financial packages and the
nature of their objectives, their success may help to reduce existing asymmetries and
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
169
create greater interdependence between Member States, strengthening their ties to the
EU and its institutions, deepening the integration process and opening the way to a new
phase of institutional construction (Braun, 2015).
According to Jean Pisany-Ferry (2020a), the Recovery and Resilience Plan is a risky bet
by the EU and its institutions. Should this Plan succeed in reaching, or even surpassing,
its objectives, it could pave the way for new steps in the process of European integration,
recovering the expectations it created, extending into new areas such as fiscal unification
together with monetary unity (let us remember that monetary unity did not also include
unity of the banking system). However, if it fails, this could turn the Plan into a serious
blow to the credibility, effectiveness and quality of the responses that the EU can provide
in emergency and crisis situations, frustrating federalist or other aspirations towards
deeper European integration.
To avoid potential frustration and discontent, the EU could have been clearer on the
transformative and structural role of its Recovery and Resilience Plan, however better
immediate impact it may have on the less advanced and hardest hit economies (Pisany-
Ferry, 2020b). For the economic recovery of the Member States, it will also be important
to overcome the health crisis, efficiently massify the distribution of available vaccines (a
subject on which the EU and its Commission have been the target of criticism) and put
an end to the successive confinements of the population, freeing up relevant economic
activities that are being hampered.
Conclusion
The combination of the need for a rapid response to the economic crisis and the tendency
for slow political decision-making and implementation processes of the EU institutions is
complex. Faced with an emergency of the gravity of the current economic crisis, swift
and effective responses would be needed on the huge losses that member states are
already facing. And the architecture of the Recovery Plan does not seem to fulfil this
requirement. Moreover, even in the context of its approval, the traditional difficulties and
the slowness of several Member States in absorbing Community funds will have to be
taken into consideration.
The EU showed signs of understanding about the possible costs of its inaction in the face
of a crisis unprecedented since its foundation, and began to build its reaction. In this
way, it has shown a quicker ability to react than in previous crises, also demonstrating a
capacity for learning and better crisis management, probably gained through its
accumulated experience (Wolf & Ladi, 2020). Even so, the period of negotiations for the
establishment of the Recovery and Resilience Fund, as mentioned, did not hide the
existence of various types of asymmetries between Member States, and consequently
the existence of internal divergences within the EU, confirming a still persistent trend.
Unlike the 2008 crisis, in which only after the bankruptcy of banks and the onset of
economic chaos did the EU feel forced to intervene and initiate proceedings, in 2020
intervention began earlier, with different political premises and objectives, and safe from
the suspicion of favouring more developed countries. On the contrary, the EU has sought
a concerted and participatory response by the Member States, with a redistributive
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
170
profile, in favour of the weakest economies hit hardest by the pandemic, constructing a
Recovery and Resilience Plan which, among other things, gives priority to subsidies over
loans.
The fact that the EU has reached agreement on such relevant matters, on the response
to the current crisis but also projecting a set of structural policies and economic
development objectives for its future, tending towards economic cohesion and the
correction of asymmetries, reveals new ambitions and a renewed commitment between
Member States, with new elements of a political and economic nature, in the sense of
strengthening their interdependence and cooperation. In short, the continuity of the
integration process.
In the hardest moments of the Eurozone crisis, the EU was accused of depoliticising the
economic adjustment programmes in the debtor states, a moment characterised by
Schmidt as a 'policy without policies' (2020) with consequences for people's perception
of its role, subordinated to the public image of technocratic institutions such as the so-
called 'Troika'. In 2020, by contrast, the leading national and institutional political figures
gave visibility to their political role, as well as that of their European institutions. The
political line of technocracy submerged again, with a return of the so-called politicisation
(Wolf & Ladi, 2020). Personalities such as Merkel, Macron, von der Leyen and Mark Rutte
were constant presence in the media and decisive in the course of the negotiations.
In short, at the confluence of these elements, it can also be said that the role of the EU
and its institutions in the 2020 crisis, as presented in this article, reveals a growing
political capacity to adapt to crises. The succession of crises in a short space of time will
have built this capacity, by adapting to a permanent state of adversity and divergence,
shaping the interior of the institutions and enabling them to the necessary responses.
However, a number of challenges and risks remain. By building a joint solution between
the 'Next Generation EU' programme and the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-
2027, and assuming negotiating simultaneity and interdependence between the
programmes, and that they are not only about solving the present crisis but also
reshaping member states' economies, the EU and its leaders are taking on responsibilities
and burdens that are not without risk in case of failure.
At present, as mentioned, there are already serious reservations about the effectiveness
of these funds, about the adequacy of their amounts and the speed of their
implementation, given the scale of the current crisis (Celi et al., 2020), as well as about
the capacity of Member States to absorb them. If its ineffectiveness is confirmed, and in
a context of asymmetries and political divergences - discrete for the time being - new
forms of crisis in the integration process may emerge, both at the level of political leaders
and in national public opinion, as has been seen in the past. As an example of the various
weaknesses that continue to plague the EU, we note the negative reactions of various
political actors to the problems in the procurement and distribution of vaccines for the
Covid-19 pandemic.
In conclusion, the EU has corrected some mistakes made in the past and pursues an
apparent line of increasing politicisation and accountability of its institutions. Given the
expectations created among national public opinions, the success of the 'Next Generation
EU' programme will be relevant in the present and future development of the European
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
171
integration process, but also in defining the relevance of the EU in the international
context.
References
Alcidi C., & Gros D. (2020). Next Generation EU: A Large Common Response to the
COVID-19 Crisis, Intereconomics, 55(4), 202-203, DOI:10.1007/s10272-020-0900-6
Bayer, L., (2020). “EU leaders back deal to end budget blockade by Hungary and Poland”,
Politico, 10 december 2020, available at https://www.politico.eu/article/deal-reached-to-
unblock-eu-budget-and-recovery-fund/, last access 31 march 2021
Baume, M., & Burchard, H. (2020). “Von der Leyen threatens EU recovery fund without
Hungary and Poland”, Politico, 2 december 2020, available at
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-commission-proposes-eu-recovery-without-
hungary-and-poland/, last access 31 march 2021
Begg, I. (2021). One Instrument, Many Goals: Some Delicate Challenges Facing the EU’s
Recovery Fund, CESifo Forum, 22(1): 9-13
Boffey, D., (2020). “Merkel and Macron propose €500bn EU rescue fund”, The Guardian,
18 may 2020, available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/18/merkel-
and-macron-propose-500bn-eu-rescue-fund, last access 31 march 2021
Börzel, T.A. (2016). From EU Governance of Crisis to Crisis of EU Governance:
Regulatory Failure, Redistributive Conflict and Eurosceptic Publics. Journal of Common
Market Studies, 54: 8–31
Braun, B. (2015). “Preparedness, Crisis Management and Policy Change: The Euro Area
at the Critical Juncture of 2008–2013.” The British Journal of Politics and International
Relations 17 (3): 419–441. doi:10.1111/1467-856X.12026.
Bundesregierung, (2020). A French-German initiative for the European Recovery from
the Coronavirus Crisis, available at
https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/973812/1753772/414a4b5a1ca91d4f7
146eeb2b39ee72b/2020-05-18-deutsch-franzoesischer-erklaerung-eng-
data.pdf?download=1
Ceballos, A. (2015). Crisis of the euro-zone: structural faults and contractionary policies,
Economía UNAM, 12(35): 45-68.
Celi, G., Guarascio, D. & Simonazzi, A. (2020). A fragile and divided European Union
meets Covid-19: further disintegration or ‘Hamiltonian moment’?. J. Ind. Bus.
Econ. 47: 411–424
European Commission, (2020a). Europe's moment: Repair and prepare for the next
generation. Available at
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_940
European Commission, (2020b). Recovery plan for Europe. Available at
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/recovery-plan-europe_pt
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
172
European Council, (2020a). Special European Council, 17-21 July 2020. Available at
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/european-council/2020/07/17-21/
European Council, (2020b). Next multiannual financial framework and recovery package:
Council presidency reaches political agreement with the European Parliament. Available
at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/pt/press/press-releases/2020/11/10/next-
multiannual-financial-framework-and-recovery-package-council-presidency-reaches-
political-agreement-with-the-european-parliament/
European Council (2020c). European Council conclusions, 17-21 July 2020. Available at
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/07/21/european-
council-conclusions-17-21-july-2020/
European Council, (2020d). President Charles Michel presents his proposal for the MFF
and the recovery package. Available at
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/07/10/president-
charles-michel-presents-his-proposal-for-the-mff-and-the-recovery-package/
European Council, (2021). A recovery plan for Europe. Available at
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-recovery-plan/
Darvas Z. (2020). ‘Next Generation EU: 75% of grants will have to wait until
2023’, Bruegel Blog, 10 june 2020, available at https://www.bruegel.org/2020/06/three-
quarters-of-next-generation-eu-payments-will-have-to-wait-until-2023/
Euroactiv, (2020). “Austria opposes current EU rescue, wants changes”, Euroactiv, 1 june
2020, available at https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/austria-
opposes-current-eu-rescue-wants-changes/, last access 31 march 2021
Glencross, A. (2014). The Eurozone Crisis as a Challenge to Democracy and Integration
in Europe, Orbis, 58(1): 55-68
Grauwe, P. (2016). The legacy of the Eurozone crisis and how to overcome it, Journal of
Empirical Finance, 39(B):147-155
Hall, B. (2020). “EU must seize the moment to defend rule of law”. Financial Times. 1
october 2020. Available at https://www.ft.com/content/c888d73b-e6d0-496d-ba7b-
37992427afc7, last access 31 march 2021
Herszenhorn, David., & Bayer, L. (2020). “European Union leaders agree on coronavirus
recovery package”. Político., available at
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/21/europe-coronavirus-recovery-package-
375286 last access 31 march 2021
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2019). Grand theories of European integration in the twenty-
first century. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(8), 1113–1133.
Ladi S. & Tsarouhas D. (2020). EU economic governance and Covid-19: policy learning
and windows of opportunity, Journal of European Integration, 42(8):1041-1056.
Lagarde, C. (2020). “Europe’s Response to the Crisis.” ECB Blog, 23 july 2020, available
at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/blog/date/2020/html/ecb.blog200723~c06fafabb6
.en.html)
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
173
Lofven, S. (2020). Financial Times, available at https://www.ft.com/content/7c47fa9d-
6d54-4bde-a1da-2c407a52e471, last access 31 march 2021
Parlamento Europeu, (2020a). Coronavirus: Parliament approves €37 billion crisis
response. Available at
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20200323STO75617/cov
id-19-parliament-approves-EU37-billion-crisis-response
Político (2020). “EU’s leadrs vídeo summit: As it happened”, 18 june 2020, available at
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-summit-recovery-plan-mff-live-blog/, last access 31
march 2021
Pisani-Ferry, J. (2020a) “Europe’s Recovery Gamble”, Bruegel Blog, 25 september 2020,
available at https://www.bruegel. org/2020/09/europes-recovery-gamble/
Pisani-Ferry, J. (2020b). European Union Recovery Funds: Strings At- tached, But Not
Tied Up in Knots, Bruegel blog, 27 october 2020, available at
https://www.bruegel.org/2020/10/european-union-recovery-funds-strings-attached-
but-not-tied-up-in-knots/
Reuters (2020). “Dutch PM Rutte: no necessity to reach European recovery fund deal at
July meeting”, 3 july 2020, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-recovery-
rutte/dutch-pm-rutte-no-necessity-to-reach-european-recovery-fund-deal-at-july-
meeting-idUSKBN2441SE, last access 31 march 2021
Sanchez, P. (2020). Europe's future is at stake in this war against coronavirus, The
Guardian, available at
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2020/apr/05/europes-future-is-at-
stake-in-this-war-against-coronavirus, last access 31 march 2021.
Sapir, A. (2020). ‘Why has COVID-19 hit different European Union economies so
differently?’, Bruegel blog, 27 september 2020, available at
https://www.bruegel.org/2020/09/why-has-covid-19-hit-different-european-union-
economies-so-differently/ last access 31 march 2021.
Schmidt, V. (2020). Theorizing institutional change and governance in European
responses to the Covid-19 pandemic, Journal of European Integration, 42(8): 1177-
1193.
Siza R. & Aníbal, S. (2020). “Crise da Covid 19 expõe as velhas divisões da União
Europeia”, Publico, 26 march 2020, available at
https://www.publico.pt/2020/03/26/economia/noticia/crise-covid19-expoe-velhas-
divisoes-uniao-europeia-1909705, last access 31 march 2021.
Strupczewski, J. (2020). Hungary, Poland block 2021-2027 EU budget, recovery package,
Reuters, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-budget/hungary-poland-
block-2021-2027-eu-budget-recovery-package-idUSKBN27W1W8, last access 31 march
2021.
O’Leary, N. (2020). “Fierce backlash to Dutch hard line on Eurobonds”, The Irish Times,
31 march 2020, available at https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/fierce-
backlash-to-dutch-hard-line-on-eurobonds-1.4217157, last access 31 march 2021.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 12, Nº. 2 (November 2021-April 2022), pp. 160-174
The European Union’s recovery and resilience fund,
in the context of the European integration project and its future prospects
Filipe Guerra
174
Watzka, S., & Watt A. (2020) The Macroeconomic effect of the EU Recovery and
Resilience Facility A preliminary assessment, IMK Policy Brief, 98:1-16
Wolff, S. & Ladi, S. (2020) European Union Responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic:
adaptability in times of Permanent Emergency, Journal of European Integration, 42:
1025-1040.
