[en] Team Europe ; EU development policy ; European Investment Bank ; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ; new intergovernmentalism
[en] The European Union (EU) and its member states are the world’s largest development donor, but the European financial architecture for development suffers from well-documented problems of fragmentation. EU member states’ decision to convene the Wieser Group in April 2019 raised expectations over rationalising the roles of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). However, the Council of the EU showed little enthusiasm for the group’s call to create a single entity for external development finance. Twelve months later, member states endorsed Team Europe, an alternative approach which mobilises the resources of the EIB, the EBRD, the European Commission and national development finance institutions in support of shared development goals. This article seeks to explain why the Council ultimately preferred Team Europe’s coordinated approach to the Wieser Report’s centralised vision of a European Climate and Sustainable Development Bank. In keeping with new intergovernmentalism, we find that member states’ willingness to cooperate but reluctance to delegate, and the aim of EU institutions to protect their turf, favoured Team Europe. We see few reasons to expect radical changes in this domain despite continued doubts over the effectiveness and coherence of European development finance.
[University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (FHSE) > Department of Social Sciences (DSOC) >]
