The Recovery and Resilience Dialogues: Cheap Talk or Effective Oversight?
The recovery and resilience dialogues were introduced by the regulation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and the first of such dialogues took place in May 2021. The European Parliament invites the Commission, approximately every two months, to exchange views on matters relating to the nation...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cogitatio
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Politics and Governance |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/7344 |
| _version_ | 1797372698653884416 |
|---|---|
| author | Edoardo Bressanelli Nicola Chelotti Matteo Nebbiai |
| author_facet | Edoardo Bressanelli Nicola Chelotti Matteo Nebbiai |
| author_sort | Edoardo Bressanelli |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The recovery and resilience dialogues were introduced by the regulation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and the first of such dialogues took place in May 2021. The European Parliament invites the Commission, approximately every two months, to exchange views on matters relating to the national recovery and resilience plans and progress in their implementation. Through an analysis of an original dataset composed of the questions asked by the MEPs in the 10 dialogues held between May 2021 and April 2023, this article provides a systematic empirical assessment of the European Parliament’s capacity to hold the Commission accountable. Drawing on the literature on the economic and monetary dialogues and adapting the operationalisation of key variables to the new instrument, this article shows that the recovery and resilience dialogues are an effective instrument for information exchange and debate, but they serve as a weak instrument of political accountability. Additionally, it casts new light on significant differences between MEPs: South and East European members are considerably more active than members from Northern Europe. At the same time, parliamentarians only occasionally ask questions targeting other member states. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T18:39:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-11fc8710e12a4400a448a0d70a054f26 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2183-2463 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T18:39:34Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | Cogitatio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Politics and Governance |
| spelling | doaj.art-11fc8710e12a4400a448a0d70a054f262023-12-29T09:44:17ZengCogitatioPolitics and Governance2183-24632023-12-0111429731010.17645/pag.v11i4.73443375The Recovery and Resilience Dialogues: Cheap Talk or Effective Oversight?Edoardo Bressanelli0Nicola Chelotti1Matteo Nebbiai2Institute of Law, Politics and Development (DIRPOLIS), Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, ItalyInstitute for Diplomacy and International Governance, Loughborough University, UKDepartment of Political Economy, King’s College London, UKThe recovery and resilience dialogues were introduced by the regulation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and the first of such dialogues took place in May 2021. The European Parliament invites the Commission, approximately every two months, to exchange views on matters relating to the national recovery and resilience plans and progress in their implementation. Through an analysis of an original dataset composed of the questions asked by the MEPs in the 10 dialogues held between May 2021 and April 2023, this article provides a systematic empirical assessment of the European Parliament’s capacity to hold the Commission accountable. Drawing on the literature on the economic and monetary dialogues and adapting the operationalisation of key variables to the new instrument, this article shows that the recovery and resilience dialogues are an effective instrument for information exchange and debate, but they serve as a weak instrument of political accountability. Additionally, it casts new light on significant differences between MEPs: South and East European members are considerably more active than members from Northern Europe. At the same time, parliamentarians only occasionally ask questions targeting other member states.https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/7344accountabilityeuropean commissioneuropean parliamentpost‐pandemic recoveryrecovery and resilience dialoguesrecovery and resilience facility |
| spellingShingle | Edoardo Bressanelli Nicola Chelotti Matteo Nebbiai The Recovery and Resilience Dialogues: Cheap Talk or Effective Oversight? Politics and Governance accountability european commission european parliament post‐pandemic recovery recovery and resilience dialogues recovery and resilience facility |
| title | The Recovery and Resilience Dialogues: Cheap Talk or Effective Oversight? |
| title_full | The Recovery and Resilience Dialogues: Cheap Talk or Effective Oversight? |
| title_fullStr | The Recovery and Resilience Dialogues: Cheap Talk or Effective Oversight? |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Recovery and Resilience Dialogues: Cheap Talk or Effective Oversight? |
| title_short | The Recovery and Resilience Dialogues: Cheap Talk or Effective Oversight? |
| title_sort | recovery and resilience dialogues cheap talk or effective oversight |
| topic | accountability european commission european parliament post‐pandemic recovery recovery and resilience dialogues recovery and resilience facility |
| url | https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/7344 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT edoardobressanelli therecoveryandresiliencedialoguescheaptalkoreffectiveoversight AT nicolachelotti therecoveryandresiliencedialoguescheaptalkoreffectiveoversight AT matteonebbiai therecoveryandresiliencedialoguescheaptalkoreffectiveoversight AT edoardobressanelli recoveryandresiliencedialoguescheaptalkoreffectiveoversight AT nicolachelotti recoveryandresiliencedialoguescheaptalkoreffectiveoversight AT matteonebbiai recoveryandresiliencedialoguescheaptalkoreffectiveoversight |