COVID‐19 and European Multi‐Level Democracy

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic that hit Europe in early 2020 radically reshaped the political agenda at all levels of Europe's multi-level system within a matter of weeks. It continued to overshadow all other public concerns throughout 2021. The single most important development that distinguished the second year of the pandemic from the first was that, from early 2021, COVID-19 vaccines became widely available and were rolled out throughout Europe. Early hopes that vaccination might offer full protection against infection were soon dashed. However, the availability of vaccines propelled governments to reorient policy from strict containment to approaches that meant ‘learning to live with the virus’. This shift was not linear. Partly driven by the emergence of new COVID-19 ‘variants of interest and concern’, policy changes and reversals were frequent. But during 2021, restrictions on individual and civil liberties justified on public health grounds became complemented by the reliance on vaccination as the chief means to combat the pandemic. Vaccination meant that public policies became increasingly differentiated between the (fully) vaccinated and the non-vaccinated (for details, see Hale et al., 2022), often provoking intensive protest. The year 2021 was also when the full political and institutional implications of the pandemic became ever more apparent, as the long-term nature of the fight against COVID-19, with its ever-changing variants, sunk in, economic and social costs escalated, and initial emergency measures at EU and national levels became routinized, normalized and, in some instances, institutionalized. Throughout 2021, political scientists continued to engage intensively with the fast-moving pandemic-related policy, institutional and political developments, building on an early wave of empirical work conducted in the first weeks and months of the pandemic (for a review, see Goetz and Martinsen, 2021). Empirical inquiry into this post-vaccine phase of COVID-related governance is still very much ongoing. At the risk of over-accentuating shifts in research foci, one can discern several trends that partly reflect the post-vaccine reality. Initial work in public policy was strongly focused on public health. The diversification of policies from public health to those addressing the economic and social fallout of the pandemic has been reflected in work that seeks to trace the wider scope of policy responses triggered by the pandemic. An early focus on how regional, national, EU and multi-level institutions shaped political and policy responses has become complemented by work that seeks to understand how Europe's multi-level architecture is being reshaped. In writing on pandemic politics, contestation of, and protests against, public measures designed to contain the pandemic have emerged as important themes. Following an initial ‘rally round the flag’ effect and evidence of high public trust in public policy-makers, system support seems to have become strained (Bor et al., 2021). This review focuses on the intertwined multi-level and democratic implications of the pandemic, as it progressed into its second year, and on political science scholarship that has sought to describe, explain and make sense of policy, institutional and political responses and consequences. Given its transboundary nature, it was clear from the outset that the pandemic called for co-ordination across regional, national, EU and international levels. The inadequacy of existing European multi-level institutions to respond effectively was readily apparent from the onset of the pandemic and there were calls for rapid far-reaching reforms, for example in the form of a European health union. Academic observers have taken different views on both the extent to which the pandemic has changed the institutional balance and power relations between the EU and its member states and on its democratic implications. Disagreements are evident between crisis accounts that suggest an incremental ‘failing forward’ logic of integration, on the one hand, and studies of European ‘emergency politics’, on the other. The ‘failing forward’ argument regards crisis-driven institutional change in the EU multi-level system as inherently insufficient to provide rapid and effective functional responses (Jones et al., 2016, 2021). EU institutions tend to be little prepared when faced with sudden crises due to the thresholds of intergovernmental bargaining. When a crisis hits, the incompleteness of previous institutional responses becomes apparent. Member states are forced to the negotiation table to re-examine existing institutions, but disagreements prevent more than lowest common denominator outcomes. Thus, ‘failing forward’ is a repetitive, incremental institutional response. By contrast, ‘emergency politics’ accounts see the institutional impact of crises as more profound, albeit in highly problematic ways (Kreuder-Sonnen and White, 2022; White, 2019, 2022). When major challenges arise, urgency can be cultivated, exploited and made to serve political ends (Kreuder-Sonnen and White, 2022, p. 954). Politics of ‘the last resort’ may propel – or force – actors into unprecedented agreements, and put normal rules of procedure and ordinary decision-making on hold. It sets aside usual democratic processes and controls (Schmidt, 2022). Decisions taken in the emergency mode are consequential, since they are capable of creating novel and lasting institutional outcomes. In particular, European emergency politics shift power from the national to the supranational level. Next to multi-level shifts, emergency accounts also engage directly with the democratic implications of this mode of policy-making: emergencies empower ‘technical executives’ and experts at the expense of democratically elected actors (Kreuder-Sonnen and White, 2022, p. 956; Schmidt, 2022, p. 980; White, 2019, p. 2). In the following, we first address major developments along the vertical and horizontal axes of the multi-level system, before turning to key democratic challenges of post-vaccine politics, focused on democratic performance, democratic quality and democratic support. Much research on the institutional impact of the pandemic on the EU has concentrated on the domains of health and the economy (see, for example, Becker and Gehring, 2022; De la Porte and Heins, 2022; De la Porte and Jensen, 2021; Deruelle and Engeli, 2021; Fabbrini, 2022; Forman and Mossialos, 2021; Rhodes, 2021). In both domains, we see vertical institutional shifts of powers and responsibilities towards the EU, with the Commission taking centre stage. Whereas 2020 was the year of game-changing decisions, such as the agreement on the Next Generation EU funds, and of novel EU powers, in 2021 the decisions had to be implemented and the new powers used, while executive action at all levels became exposed to intense public scrutiny and contestation. When struck by the pandemic, the EU's weak capabilities, dispersed authority and limited budget in health security stood out (Forman and Mossialos, 2021). With catastrophic health news beginning to emerge first in Italian Bergamo, followed soon by fears that the US would monopolize coronavirus remedies and that member states would outcompete one another in the race for vaccines, the need for a pan-European response was soon acknowledged (Becker and Gehring, 2022; Deutsch and Wheaton, 2021). In retrospect, the decision-making speed is notable. Already in June 2020, the European Commission was endowed with the novel power of collective vaccine procurement and member states had approved a supranational vaccine plan (Becker and Gehring, 2022; Rhodes, 2021). On 21 December 2020, the Commission and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) authorized the first COVID-19 vaccine. Throughout 2021, another four vaccine authorizations followed suit. On 6 May 2021, the Commission presented its COVID-19 therapeutics strategy to complement the vaccine strategy and to deal with the long-term effects of the infection. Also in 2021, the Commission developed the EU Digital COVID Certificate, which entered into force by 1 July and became interoperational across EU borders. Given that member states had traditionally guarded their health sovereignty closely, this upshift in EU powers is notable and demonstrates that under emergency rule, a recalibration of political authority can occur rapidly and on a scale that would previously have been considered highly improbable (Tesche, 2022; Vollaard et al., 2016; Vollaard and Martinsen, 2017). However, as a concomitant, the Commission also came under increasing scrutiny for its actions. Soon after the major decision to let the Commission directly purchase vaccines and the provision of a considerable budget to do so, the Commission's abilities became subject to severe criticism. The objection was that the inexperienced Commission had chosen the wrong strategy, aiming for lower prices rather than speedy delivery of vaccines and thus fell behind the US and the UK. Also, at the end of 2020, the EMA was fiercely criticized for being too slow in the approval of COVID-19 vaccines. On 2 December 2020, the UK approved the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, followed shortly after by the US and Canada. EMA's approval came just three weeks later, but the Commission and the agency had already lost the game for public approval. Their claim to carry out a more thorough authorization procedure did not resonate in the midst of public critique (Deutsch and Wheaton, 2021). The following year became no easier. Early 2021 was marked by severe supply shortages and delays in delivery (Becker and Gehring, 2022). Again, the Commission was subject to condemnation, this time for not having secured enough vaccines and for unfair distribution between its member states (De Gruyter, 2021; Deutsch and Wheaton, 2021). In the spring of 2021, there was public criticism of severe production problems and of the relatively slow vaccine roll-out in the EU, which fell notably behind the US, the UK and Israel. By May 2021, the EU had apparently caught up. The Commission had set up a vaccine procurement task force, funded in part by a new BioNTech/Pfizer production site in Germany, and it had secured 1.8 billion doses of vaccine from the same company (Cokelaere, 2021; De Gruyter, 2021; Rhodes, 2021). Only a year later, problems of supply had turned into problems of demand. The European Commission had now secured 4.2 billion doses of vaccine. After an informal meeting of health ministers on 18 May 2022, officials from a number of EU countries prepared a letter asking the European Commission to redraw its existing coronavirus vaccine procurement agreements and to allow member states to take up only the vaccine doses they actually needed (Martuscelli, 2022). In economic policies, too, the pandemic implied considerable vertical institutional dynamics, centralizing more powers around the European Commission. For the first time, the European executive was endowed with the power to borrow money on the financial markets and to transfer funds to member states (Fabbrini, 2022). In this regard, the European Council meeting in July 2020 is noted as a turning point at which the EU heads of state and government agreed on the Next Generation EU (NGEU) recovery plan as part of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) (Hillion, 2021). The early negotiations in March and April 2020 of the recovery plan were, however, ripe with political disagreements (De la Porte and Jensen, 2021; Ferrera et al., 2021). De la Porte and Jensen three which under normal would have a deal or turned it into a lowest common denominator emerged on the member states as to financial support to member states be only or by a of and with came to support the and the – the and – also came to the of and to was on the of The Commission and the of member states to to from the and the to and the of and strongly negotiations were with a policy member states between those that to to be to and and those that emergency recovery to be (De la Porte and Jensen, 2021). severe the was agreed The deal considerable changes in the EU vertical institutional balance (Becker and Gehring, 2022). It with the of no common and an of (De la Porte and Jensen, 2021). to it the EU's to and new institutions as a crisis response. than ‘failing Europe's multi-level has forward’ 2021, p. In particular, the Commission has new political and institutional to borrow on the markets on of the EU all the up to billion (De la Porte and Jensen, 2021, p. major shift by are new of The European Council agreed on a to its common in part the system and new a new a and a (Fabbrini, 2022, p. On December 2021, the Commission of three new in of the effects on EU economic governance that the policy measures by the EU to address the economic of COVID-19 were a for the European and a major between the economic and the of and as such a in the of European (Fabbrini, 2022, p. Whereas since its had on a between a policy with the European at its and a economic policy at the state the for the first time endowed the EU with its powers (Fabbrini, 2022, p. The key of – the and – was by the European and the Council on 18 December The a of billion in and available to support and by EU 1 only has the Commission been to borrow but it is also in of its and of and the member recovery and to the June 2021 the Commission its first of national recovery and the extent to which the national the of and social the Commission to the of and throughout 2021, due to The plan was only on 1 June 2022, the plan is still at the time of writing 2022). By 2021, and became the first countries to a under the 2 countries followed soon all an initial of their were to be authorized by the on the of the and in the national recovery and The Commission's executive is as it has unprecedented financial means to or member Next to vertical institutional shifts, the multi-level system has also been reshaped by new horizontal institutional dynamics, national intergovernmental the European EU experts and the European the of the pandemic, a new EU health governance architecture has to take In this take centre stage. that become increasingly important institutions for European at the expense of supranational institutions, most notably the Commission et al., However, rather than institutional are new horizontal by and and between the and health The European for and came to a in the pandemic and Engeli, 2021). Deruelle and that COVID-19 became a functional for the which changed its from risk to a of risk This co-ordination in with the intergovernmental in the Council of the and with the Commission. than a power between the institutions, the that the of the have been to the the institutions have to when co-ordination in the and Engeli, 2021, p. Thus, the intergovernmental of national has had to and with both the Commission and the The EMA became another in EU in it is one of the more EU health institutions with its to EU approval to new and Mossialos, The agency was thus for the COVID-19 vaccines. for the first time, this (Schmidt, its to was and by the as experts centre in national did the EMA with the Commission's had to respond to political and public to its The the US and the EU in a political vaccine race on would be first to to the vaccine. At a on 21 December 2020, the approval of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, the EMA its approval three weeks behind the UK called the a while that the had not been public the last EMA has the intense taking in the public some for a approval. were that development was too of interest at EMA have and been by the of the evidence and After the first BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine approval on 21 December 2020, the authorization of vaccines followed at a rapid On 6 2021, the Commission that the vaccine had been authorized on the of EMA's and quality The vaccines developed by and followed on March and December 2021, The year 2021 thus became when the Commission and EMA vaccine authorization at unprecedented The of did however, the from criticism. EMA's too, had a to and in The became in the vaccine processes of the COVID-19 vaccine 2022; et al., 2022). of the vaccine were up after some of In 2021, disagreements between the EMA and national became more and EMA that the vaccine was to that the of the vaccine for most (Deutsch et al., 2021). However, national increasingly the vaccine, its and, by the of EMA and its to the the European Commission towards a European In 2020, several were for EMA as as for the The EMA was approved in At the time of writing 2022), negotiations are between the member states and the European on the the most important European by the Commission was the of a new the and At the was to a new European agency to as a to the US and However, for those aiming for a the of was of an became a within the European for and It became in a of member states had changed from a considerable of EU health to more or of such a transfer of powers 2021). It is that was by means of a Commission by 2021. The European was thus in In the horizontal institutional in health are by the EU and experts as the new of actors in EU crisis At the same time, we see disagreements between supranational and national The European by contrast, in the In economic policy, too, horizontal and disagreements came to the in around the (De la Porte and Jensen, 2021; 2022). out that the crisis a around the which to (Tesche, 2022, p. The of emergency politics thus only be for in the of crisis but in of consequences. to the Council decision on the the and the horizontal institutional have been On the one hand, the Council decision marked a turning the Commission in the of the COVID-19 recovery On the the and heads of government had to some extent in the Council a the Council on the and more Council when the Commission the (Hillion, 2021, p. 2). after the European Council agreement on the and the in July 2020, the political in the European against the intergovernmental deal and to the budget the became and more The European and the Council a on the budget in 2020, only to be by from and the a was and the budget in December However, soon and continued the the The member states before the of of the European that the the put the of the on hold. On 2022, the its 6 in the the from and and the for the Commission to the to democratic governance became apparent very early on during the pandemic and have concerns and research and around three major can European with the the pandemic a in and democratic and can trust and support of, or in of, the measures taken to combat the pandemic and its economic and social is at in democratic performance, democratic quality and democratic support. The most scholarship on three increasingly their empirical For example, between restrictions on liberties and public et suggest that the pandemic an for the to individual 2). from Germany, and the they that COVID-19 had a on restrictions on civil liberties ‘the that the impact of trust the a key for the of civil liberties was with of civil 2). et on performance, trust and across European that both levels of social and political trust and in trust – notably between government and – are in in in European as a key The of European multi-level would be to with the pandemic – and how they would be to – the of the challenges was on states were not to the of restrictions on that the pandemic to for and to empirical work that democratic countries to have a COVID-19 2022), that we be of that democratic be to the from the we do not between the of and COVID-19 et al., 2021, p. However, most research has focused on across to explain both in policy responses and policy outcomes. In with approaches in public policy, political and and their are to For example, of in national have been to make a and 2021; and 2022), et that between policy and political trust national responses and is in for in outcomes. in responses to the pandemic, politics have also been to Thus, et they the of to the pandemic and to be a of the responses of both and The of responses a of democratic quality has much public and 2021, the with democratic and civil and individual liberties has been in some European countries by public to regards democratic the on ‘emergency politics’ and its effects on democratic quality the pandemic, as noted of ‘emergency politics’ have been to the to the pandemic as another of a by now of executive and by empirical work has to a more et have a countries and and of democratic for emergency measures across that countries have in at some of democratic since the beginning of the pandemic. more common in such are also in democratic also however, that weak and of democratic be of as take of the to and In has in particular, on and 2022), evidence of democratic throughout 2021. of and democratic trust and support of Much initial work on focused on responses and trust in ‘rally round the flag’ that an in trust in was in some European but was in et al., 2021; and 2021). research a differentiated and, in some For example, et evidence that to a marked in democratic system support as the pandemic on from and the US, they a of system support in all four countries throughout their also that ‘the to system support is more at that system support may not the of the pandemic When the COVID-19 pandemic hit it set in a of slow in system and as the crisis rather than to a key Thus, et suggest that and different democratic for democratic support. This with the of and on from the UK from 2020 and 2021, they evidence of a between levels of COVID-related and and lower of government and trust in of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on European multi-level be and and institutional changes take time to their full implications become only apparent and, empirical research on how multi-level has and been reshaped the pandemic is still very much in This three developments stood out in 2021. at the of the European the decisions taken in 2020 that far-reaching new powers and to the EU and, the were put to in 2021, as the and was rolled out and as the European executive emerged as the authority in vaccine authorization and It became clear that, in important the EU had from it to the pandemic. the post-vaccine phase of pandemic governance meant that, at national some of the measures taken to contain the of the to be albeit et al., 2022). At the same time, had as such as the of or the to carry vaccination and became the of thus to emerge in a a to individual and liberties and ways of and an that of the public health measures to combat COVID-19 would be to for the evidence is still accounts suggest that the effects on may and be more than might have at In this the of in the to on the pandemic has become For example, has that, in the of the pandemic and a development that did not the as by it its ever of the in the April In the of to from the pandemic and to do very in the for The pandemic in 2021 may not have new in European but it may out to have and political