Open Access
An uphill struggle : a long-term perspective on the European public goods debate
Loading...
Files
PB 24 2024.pdf (180.24 KB)
Full-text in Open Access
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Bruegel; Policy Brief; 2024/24
Cite
MOURLON-DRUOL, Emmanuel, An uphill struggle : a long-term perspective on the European public goods debate, Bruegel, Policy Brief, 2024/24 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/77356
Abstract
The historical track record of centralisation of public expenditures at European Union level is patchy, and the prospects of agreement on future common spending are not good. However, Russia’s attack on Ukraine, NextGenerationEU, ensuring the stability of the euro and the climate crisis have been cited as justifying a further step-up in public spending at EU level. In recent years, the economic debate over the definition and provision of so-called European public goods (EPGs) has also revived and has put upfront the question of what to spend at EU level, based on an economic interpretation of where spending would be more efficient. To provide a counterpart to the more abstract debate on EPGs, this paper analyses major discussions that have taken place since the beginning of European integration about increasing the EU’s fiscal capacity. It shows how heavily EU agreements on what public expenditure should be centralised have relied on political considerations, in addition to, or instead of, reasoning about economic efficiency. These precedents should inform today’s discussions. In particular, it should be remembered that: (a) very specific historical and political contexts made proposals to centralise expenditure at EU level convincing and successful; (b) the notion of ‘fiscal federalism’ was and is occasionally invoked but rarely put into practice; (c) progress depends on clearly delineated issues; and (d) a political agreement on a ‘non-market definition of the common interest’ remains crucial to any change.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Published online: 14 October 2024