From Cooperative To Coercive Federalism? The Legislative Function Under Next Generation EU And The Federal Genus of Union Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Working Paper examines what Next Generation EU (NGEU) does to the structure of federalism in the EU. It draws a comparison between the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and conditional spending programmes in US, Australian and Canadian federalism to identify a heuristic framework for determining when funding to (Member) States crosses the line between policy leverage and a form of federal coercion. While, after the RRF, the cohesion legal basis takes on features in common with the US “general welfare clause”, the Working Paper argues that the RRF does not have an unambiguously coercive character that satisfies the definition of compulsion gleaned from comparative federal jurisprudence. With that template, the Working Paper puts forward tools to understand if the RRF and its putative “de-crisisified” successor leave sufficient policy space for Member States and their legislatures to exercise real choice regarding the acceptance of funds, based on the size, granularity and extraneousness of conditional spending.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".