This paper analyses the EU’s policies for energy and climate, using Börzel’s theoretical framework on Europeanisation, and examines Member States’ Green Deal responses, strategies, and compliance. As expressed in their final NECPs, although Member States’ responses vary, most of the critical components were partially addressed, while the others were largely addressed. We observe a considerable variation in Member States’ strategies. Member States classified as foot-dragging beforehand are fence-sitting now, while those previously categorised as fence-sitting are now either foot-dragging or pace-setting. The root cause of these classification changes for the Member States within the EU can be traced back to their internal environments in which the involved stakeholders each have a different response pace regarding environment, climate, and energy. We present and analyse our theoretical context, discuss the EU’s energy policies and the NECPs, examine Member States’ responses and compliance with this new framework, and propose several challenges.

In this article, we emphasize the political causes of the crisis in order to evaluate not only whether these have been the main factors behind the economic crisis (particularly over the last decade), but also whether these can be considered the main factors for the failure of Greek and European officials to overcome the economic crisis. Over the last ten years, there has been something of a deterioration of the political variables and we are now faced with a question of whether we can begin to talk about a way out of the crisis. As per our argument, despite the acceptance of new institutional rules for the efficient operation of the economy through the memoranda of understanding, Greece’s performance has worsened in terms of its political and institutional governance indicators over the last decades. This fact is particularly worrying because it highlights an overall failure to change the political conditions that affect the overall quality of life and prosperity.

Many scholars have tried to comprehend and analyse the root causes of the Greek economic crisis. In the majority of these analyses, a series of economic factors were mainly highlighted as the key to understanding the nature of the problem. While these factors are profound aspects of the Greek financial and economic failure, they are only a part of the reality. The root causes for the Greek crisis can be found within the Greek political and institutional model of development and its model of governance. In this paper a series of political factors are highlighted as the key factors of this crisis. The development of statism, the failed Europeanization, the high level of corruption, the impact of syndicates and interest groups on the formation of economic policies, the skewed model of governance, populism and the unstable political and parliamentary regime are the most profound. The Greek crisis has a political element that cannot be overlooked and it is highly different than any other European country. This political element makes us worry about the future of the Greek crisis and the EU.

This paper analyses the EU’s policies for energy and climate, using Börzel's (2002) theoretical framework on Europeanisation, and examines member states’ Green Deal responses, strategies, and compliance. As expressed in their final NECPs, although member states’ responses vary, most of the critical components were partially addressed, while the others were largely addressed. We observe a considerable variation in Member State’s strategies. Member States classified as foot-dragging beforehand are fence-sitting now, while those previously categorised as fence-sitting are now either foot-dragging or pace-setting. The root cause of these classification changes for the member states within the EU can be traced back to their internal environments in which the involved stakeholders each have a different response pace regarding environment, climate, and energy. We present and analyse our theoretical context, discuss the EU’s energy policies and the NECPs, examine member states’ responses and compliance with this new framework, and propose several challenges.

In the almost 27 years since the signing of the Treaty of Maastricht (ToM), the EMU has transformed into a complex institution, the complexity and powers of which have exceeded even the most promising predictions. Over the years, EU actors have developed a substantial dependent relationship, where asymmetric power plays a crucial role; in fact, asymmetry and asymmetric power have become the unifying glue for economic integration. The main purpose of this study is to analyze and evaluate the importance of asymmetric power in order to understand dynamics and change in the EMU and to determine through which mechanism the economic integration process has been asymmetrically promoted. As we will argue, within the EMU, there seems to exist a specific feedback loop mechanism, through which the dominance of powerful MS is reproduced in the way policy is proposed within contemporary EMU politics. The reproduction of asymmetric power within the EMU plays a key role in shaping the system of governance and in decision-making, and through economic integration, appropriate dynamics have been created to diffuse and reproduce asymmetric power.