How and why did the European Semester end up as the main institutional vehicle of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)? To what extent did this new set-up change the power balance among key actors (for example, financial and economic actors versus social affairs actors)? Drawing on historical institutionalism and based on 28 semi-structured interviews and document analysis, our assessment suggests that while social actors were initially side-lined and national executives strengthened, over time the pendulum is swinging back. The usual actors are strategically using the institutional structures of the revised Semester as a vehicle to ‘have a say’ in the RRF. Having more carrots and sticks suggests further strengthening the pivotal role of the European Commission. Yet having the option of submitting national plans gives member states options too. The EU institutional response to the Covid-19 pandemic built on, and further cemented, the EU's socio-economic governance architecture.

中文翻译：

---

作为金发姑娘的欧洲学期：宏观经济政策协调与复苏和弹性基金

欧洲学期如何以及为什么最终成为恢复和弹性基金 (RRF) 的主要机构工具？这种新设置在多大程度上改变了关键参与者（例如，金融和经济参与者与社会事务参与者）之间的权力平衡？借鉴历史制度主义并基于 28 次半结构化访谈和文件分析，我们的评估表明，虽然社会行为者最初处于边缘地位，国家高管得到加强，但随着时间的推移，钟摆正在倒退。通常的参与者战略性地利用修订后的学期的制度结构作为在 RRF 中“有发言权”的工具。有更多的胡萝卜加大棒意味着进一步加强欧盟委员会的关键作用。然而，拥有提交国家计划的选项也为成员国提供了选择。欧盟对 Covid-19 大流行的制度性反应建立在并进一步巩固了欧盟的社会经济治理架构。