From the Wieser report to Team Europe: explaining the ‘battle of the banks’ in development finance

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.

Publication Details

Journal
BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London)
Published
2024-09-08
Primary Topic
Theoretical and Computational Physics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

From the Wieser report to Team Europe: explaining the ‘battle of the banks’ in development finance

BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London)
Theoretical and Computational Physics
article

From the Wieser report to Team Europe: explaining the ‘battle of the banks’ in development finance

article en

Abstract

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.

BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London)
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
Theoretical and Computational Physics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

From the Wieser report to Team Europe: explaining the ‘battle of the banks’ in development finance · BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS