Policy Narratives in the Important Projects of Common European Interest Debate

Abstract

Scholars are starting to observe a change within industrial policy in the EU towards a more interventionistic approach, which has important implications. However, as the change has taken place more recently, scholarship on the topic is sparse and general. This thesis seeks to provide the first in-depth study of a key pillar within the ‘new’ EU industrial policy – the ‘Important Projects of Common European Interest’ state aid initiative. This paper investigates what narratives shape the IPCEI debate in the EU and how policy actors use these narratives. This is done through a single case study on IPCEIs within the fields of semiconductor, battery, and hydrogen production. To answer the research question, this thesis deploys the Narrative Policy Framework, which provides a schematic for narratives containing a plot, characters (heroes, villains, and victims), and a moral/solution. This is combined with a strategic constructivist approach theorizing that actors with diverging long-term interests work towards intermediate policy goals that are broad enough to encompass all interests. Through a qualitative content analysis of 70 newspaper articles, this thesis finds that the narratives shaping the IPCEI debate across the three investigated IPCEI fields refer to the common discourses of ‘sovereignty’, ‘competitiveness’, and ‘sustainability’. The narratives shaping the public debate are used strategically by policy actors to promote their self-interest using understandable and memorable plots. For instance, member states with an energy mix containing a lot of renewables argue for a ‘Deep Green Transition’ based on IPCEIs on ‘green’ hydrogen, which will entail that they gain an advantage vis-à-vis less green member states. In contrast, oil and gas companies argue for a ‘Cost Effective Transition’ ensuring ‘competitiveness’ in the short-term using ‘low-carbon’ hydrogen IPCEIs to gain more time to reinvest their assets. As this example illustrates, the validity of the IPCEI initiative is taken for granted and only specifics of what projects should be granted state aid are debated. The internal and external implications of this increased support for state aid as a tool are discussed. The thesis concludes by offering avenues for future research.