Economic Security and the Transformation of European Union Economic Governance: Industrial Policy, Competitiveness, and Strategic Resilience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text is clearly written, well-structured, and meets the standards of a scholarly article published in a political economy journal. The author demonstrates excellent knowledge of the literature, and the argument is logically developed. The article fits into current debates on geopolitics, technological sovereignty, and the new paradigm of EU industrial policy.

At the same time, the text contains numerous areas that require clarification, shortening, or coherence before it can be accepted for publication.

Key elements requiring improvement
1. Lack of clear distinction between original contribution and literature synthesis
The article claims to create a new "multi-dimensional analytical framework," but:
• it is unclear what exactly is new and what is a reconstruction of existing approaches,
• the empirical analysis largely describes EU policies but does not create a testable model or analytical framework in an operational sense.

More clearly define the original elements of the analytical framework and how they differ from, for example, the literature on state capacity, developmental state, and economic security. 2. Too broad a scope – the text at times resembles a report rather than a scientific article.
The article covers:
• industrial policy theory,
• geopolitics,
• energy market,
• trade regulations,
• technological sovereignty,
• qualitative political economy methodology,
• description of dozens of EU policies.
The scope is so broad that it loses analytical focus.

Narrow the analysis or add a clear mechanism combining all four pillars into a single cause-and-effect structure.
3. Problem with the methodology – the declaration of the method does not correspond to the actual analysis.
The author declares:
qualitative political-economic research design, process tracing, comparative case studies.
However, the text contains:
• lack of explicit process tracing,
• lack of a logical map of causal mechanisms,
• case studies are merely descriptive, without counterfactual or comparative analysis.

Clearly demonstrate which mechanisms have been "traced" and what evidence supports their existence. Develop the case studies – they currently serve an illustrative, not analytical, function. 4. Lack of numerical data and hard indicators
The article cites Eurostat/OECD, but:
• it does not contain any tables, charts, or specific values,
• the arguments about "increasing dependency," "growing risks," and "increased vulnerability" are purely descriptive.

Add at least the minimum:
• data on EU import dependency (semiconductors, CRMs, energy),
• data on State Aid, IPCEI, R&D levels,
• a chart showing policy changes after 2020.
Without this, the text loses its scientific credibility.
5. Overly declarative style and too little criticism
The article presents an overly positive assessment of EU policies; many passages read like:
• official European Commission documents,
• strategic reports (Draghi, Letta).

The following are missing:
• analysis of inefficiency,
• risk of lobby capture,
• investment errors,
• fiscal consequences,
• asymmetry between member states. Add critical counterarguments: e.g., the risk of creating "white elephants," the risk of renationalizing industrial policy, fiscal asymmetries.
6. Too frequent repetition of the same theses
Statements such as:
• "shift from regulatory state to strategic actor,"
• "hybrid model of resilience and competitiveness,"
• "integration of security and industrial policy"
—are repeated in almost every chapter.

Condense, synthesize, and eliminate redundancies.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive, thoughtful, and highly valuable comments provided during the review process. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestions and critical observations, which helped us to improve the clarity, analytical coherence, and overall academic quality of the manuscript.

The comments encouraged us to clarify the original contribution of the analytical framework, strengthen the methodological explanation, incorporate additional empirical indicators, expand the discussion of potential limitations and risks associated with EU industrial policy, and reduce certain conceptual repetitions throughout the text. We believe that addressing these suggestions has significantly improved the manuscript.

In the revised version, we have carefully considered all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. All modifications have been incorporated directly into the text and highlighted in the revised manuscript. Below we provide a detailed, point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Comment 1

Lack of clear distinction between original contribution and literature synthesis

The article claims to create a new “multi-dimensional analytical framework”, but it is unclear what exactly is new and what is a reconstruction of existing approaches. The empirical analysis largely describes EU policies but does not create a testable model or analytical framework in an operational sense. The reviewer suggests more clearly defining the original elements of the analytical framework and how they differ from existing literature on state capacity, developmental state, and economic security.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that the original contribution of the analytical framework needed to be clarified more explicitly. In response, we substantially revised the section addressing the research gap and analytical framework in order to better distinguish between the synthesis of existing literature and the novel contribution of this study.

In the revised manuscript, we explicitly emphasise that the originality of the article lies in the systematic integration of several strands of literature—regulatory state theory, developmental state perspectives, and geoeconomic approaches—into a coherent political-economic framework explaining how economic security reshapes the logic of EU economic governance. The revised text now clarifies that the contribution of the article is not merely descriptive but analytical: the framework identifies causal pathways linking geopolitical pressures to institutional responses and subsequently to economic consequences such as changes in investment coordination, production structures, and systemic risk management.

Revision in manuscript

Section 2.5 Research Gap and Analytical Framework has been substantially expanded and reformulated in order to explicitly define the originality and analytical contribution of the proposed framework.

Comment 2

Too broad a scope – the text resembles a report rather than a scientific article

The article covers numerous domains (industrial policy, geopolitics, energy markets, trade regulation, technological sovereignty, and EU policy instruments), which risks losing analytical focus. The reviewer suggests narrowing the scope or adding a clearer mechanism linking the four pillars into a single cause-and-effect structure.

Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the breadth of the analysis. In response, we strengthened the analytical coherence of the article by explicitly structuring the empirical analysis around a consistent causal mechanism linking structural vulnerabilities, institutional responses, and economic consequences.

To improve analytical focus, we revised the methodological section to clarify how the four analytical pillars are integrated within a single explanatory structure. The revised methodology now explicitly specifies the sequence analysed across all sectors: (1) identification of structural vulnerabilities, (2) analysis of the institutional and policy response, and (3) assessment of the economic mechanisms and consequences.

This unified analytical logic ensures that the four domains examined in the empirical section function as comparative analytical cases rather than independent descriptive policy areas.

Revision in manuscript

Sections 3.1 Research Design and Analytical Approach and 3.4 Operationalisation and Analytical Framework were expanded and clarified to explicitly define the causal analytical structure linking vulnerabilities, policy responses, and economic outcomes.

Comment 3

Problem with the methodology – lack of explicit process tracing and causal mechanism mapping

The reviewer notes that the manuscript declares a qualitative political-economic research design and process tracing but lacks explicit identification of traced mechanisms and comparative logic.

Response

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to improve methodological transparency. In response, the methodology section has been substantially revised to clarify the analytical procedure used in the study.

The revised manuscript now explicitly describes the structured process-tracing logic employed in the research design. The analysis reconstructs causal mechanisms linking exogenous shocks and structural dependencies (e.g., geopolitical conflict, supply chain disruptions, technological dependencies) to specific EU policy instruments and their economic implications.

Furthermore, we clarified the comparative logic across the four analytical domains and explained how each case follows the same analytical sequence. This improvement strengthens the transparency and replicability of the methodological approach.

Revision in manuscript

Sections 3.1 Research Design and Analytical Approach, 3.2 Data Sources and Information Triangulation, and 3.4 Operationalisation and Analytical Framework were revised to explicitly explain the analytical procedure, process-tracing logic, and comparative structure of the case studies.

Comment 4

Lack of numerical data and hard indicators

The manuscript lacks empirical indicators illustrating economic dependencies and structural risks. The reviewer recommends including basic data on EU import dependency, state aid, R&D levels, and policy developments.

Response

We appreciate this important recommendation. To strengthen the empirical grounding of the analysis, we incorporated additional quantitative indicators illustrating the structural vulnerabilities that underpin the economic security agenda.

In particular, the revised manuscript now includes numerical indicators related to EU semiconductor production capacity, dependency on critical raw materials imports, overall energy import dependency, and the expansion of state aid instruments following recent crises.

These indicators are summarised in a newly introduced table that provides a concise overview of structural dependencies and the corresponding EU policy responses. The inclusion of these empirical elements strengthens the economic substantiation of the argument while maintaining the qualitative analytical approach of the study.

Revision in manuscript

A new Table 1: Selected indicators of EU structural dependencies and policy response has been added to Section 4 (Results). Additional numerical data were also incorporated into Sections 4.3 and 4.4.

Comment 5

Overly declarative style and insufficient critical perspective

The reviewer notes that the manuscript presents EU policies in a largely positive manner and recommends adding critical discussion, including risks such as inefficiency, fiscal asymmetry, policy capture, and “white elephant” investments.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we expanded the discussion section to provide a more balanced and critical assessment of the economic security paradigm.

Specifically, the revised text now discusses potential risks associated with large-scale industrial policy interventions, including the possibility of inefficient investment allocation, the influence of powerful sectoral interests on subsidy programmes, fiscal asymmetries between Member States, and the potential fragmentation of the Single Market.

The discussion also introduces the concept of “white elephant” investments to highlight the risks of large projects that may absorb substantial public resources without delivering proportional economic benefits. These additions strengthen the critical dimension of the analysis and provide a more balanced evaluation of the policy developments examined.

Revision in manuscript

Section 5.3 Tensions between Efficiency and Resilience has been expanded to include a more explicit discussion of policy risks, fiscal asymmetries, and potential inefficiencies of industrial policy interventions.

Comment 6

Too frequent repetition of key theses

The reviewer notes repeated references to concepts such as the shift from regulatory state to strategic actor and recommends condensing the discussion.

Response

We appreciate this observation and carefully reviewed the manuscript to reduce conceptual repetition. Several passages were condensed or reformulated to avoid reiterating identical formulations across different sections of the article.

At the same time, we retained the key analytical concepts where necessary to preserve the coherence of the argument across the literature review, empirical analysis, and discussion sections. The revised manuscript therefore maintains conceptual consistency while significantly reducing redundant repetition.

Revision in manuscript

Multiple passages across Sections 2, 4, and 5 were condensed or reformulated to improve clarity and reduce redundancy.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this timely and policy-relevant manuscript. The paper addresses an important and evolving topic: the rise of economic security as a new organizing principle of EU economic governance.

The manuscript is conceptually strong, well-structured, and theoretically grounded. The four-pillar analytical framework provides a coherent structure for examining industrial capacity, technological sovereignty, energy resilience, and trade-investment protection.

However, several areas would benefit from further refinement:

1. Theoretical Distinctiveness
   While the manuscript provides an excellent synthesis of regulatory state, developmental state, and geoeconomic literature, the originality lies primarily in integration rather than in theoretical innovation. The authors are encouraged to clarify more explicitly what this framework explains that prior “strategic autonomy” or “geoeconomic turn” literature does not.

2. Methodological Transparency
   The qualitative design is appropriate; however, the manuscript would benefit from clearer explanation of:

   • Document selection criteria

   • Coding or analytical procedures

   • Systematic comparison logic across cases

   Strengthening methodological transparency would enhance scientific rigor.

3. Economic Substantiation
   Many economic implications (productivity, spillovers, cost structures) are theoretically argued rather than empirically demonstrated. Even limited descriptive indicators or structured economic evidence would significantly strengthen the manuscript’s economic contribution.

4. Results vs. Interpretation
   Given the qualitative nature of the study, the “Results” section sometimes reads as analytical interpretation rather than empirical findings. The authors may consider reframing it as “Analytical Findings” or clarifying the interpretive logic.

5. Minor Structural Refinement
   There is some conceptual repetition between Sections 4 and 5. Tightening the discussion would improve clarity and reduce redundancy.

Overall, this is a strong and publishable manuscript that requires refinement rather than restructuring.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and encouraging comments. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation of the conceptual structure and theoretical grounding of the study. The suggestions provided were highly valuable and helped us further improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and empirical substantiation of the manuscript.

In response to the reviewer’s comments, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the originality of the analytical framework, strengthen the methodological explanation, incorporate additional empirical indicators, and reduce minor conceptual repetitions between sections. Detailed responses to each comment are provided below.

Comment 1

Theoretical Distinctiveness

While the manuscript provides a strong synthesis of literature on the regulatory state, developmental state, and geoeconomic approaches, the reviewer suggests clarifying more explicitly what the proposed analytical framework explains beyond the existing literature on strategic autonomy or the geoeconomic turn.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we clarified more explicitly the theoretical contribution of the proposed framework. The revised text now emphasises that the originality of the study lies not only in synthesising existing theoretical perspectives but also in integrating them into a structured political-economic framework that identifies causal pathways linking geopolitical pressures, institutional responses, and economic outcomes.

Specifically, the article conceptualises economic security as a coordinating principle that restructures investment coordination, production ecosystems, and the allocation of strategic resources within the EU. By linking these institutional changes to economic mechanisms such as capital allocation, systemic risk internalisation, and supply chain restructuring, the framework provides an analytical perspective that complements existing literature on strategic autonomy and geoeconomics.

Revision in manuscript

Section 2.5 Research Gap and Analytical Framework has been expanded and clarified to explicitly define the theoretical contribution and analytical novelty of the proposed framework.

Comment 2

Methodological Transparency

The reviewer suggests providing a clearer explanation of document selection criteria, analytical procedures, and the comparative logic across cases.

Response

We appreciate this important recommendation. To enhance methodological transparency, we expanded the methodology section to more clearly describe the research design, the sources of empirical evidence, and the analytical procedure used in the study.

The revised manuscript now explains the criteria for document selection, the role of information triangulation across multiple data sources, and the comparative logic used in analysing the four selected domains. The analytical procedure is explicitly structured around a process-tracing logic linking structural vulnerabilities, institutional responses, and economic consequences.

Revision in manuscript

Sections 3.1 Research Design and Analytical Approach, 3.2 Data Sources and Information Triangulation, and 3.3 Selection of Case Studies have been expanded to improve methodological transparency.

Comment 3

Economic Substantiation

The reviewer suggests strengthening the economic dimension of the analysis by including additional descriptive indicators illustrating structural dependencies and economic implications.

2. posudok

Response

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, we incorporated additional empirical indicators illustrating key structural dependencies in the European economy, particularly in relation to semiconductors, critical raw materials, and energy supply.

To provide a clearer empirical context, we introduced a table summarising selected indicators of structural dependency and corresponding EU policy responses. Additional numerical references were also incorporated into the relevant analytical sections of the manuscript.

These additions strengthen the economic substantiation of the argument while maintaining the qualitative analytical focus of the study.

Revision in manuscript

A new Table 1: Selected indicators of EU structural dependencies and policy response has been introduced in Section 4 (Results), and additional empirical indicators were incorporated into Sections 4.3 and 4.4.

Comment 4

Results vs. Interpretation

The reviewer suggests that, given the qualitative nature of the study, the section titled “Results” could be interpreted as analytical interpretation rather than purely empirical findings.

Response

We appreciate this thoughtful observation. Because the study employs a qualitative political-economic research design, the empirical section necessarily combines descriptive findings with analytical interpretation. Rather than renaming the section, we clarified its analytical logic in the methodological part of the manuscript.

The revised methodology explicitly explains that the results section presents analytically reconstructed causal mechanisms linking structural vulnerabilities, policy responses, and economic implications. This clarification ensures that the interpretive nature of the findings is transparent and consistent with the chosen research design.

Revision in manuscript

Additional clarification regarding the interpretive nature of the analysis has been included in Section 3.1 Research Design and Analytical Approach.

Comment 5

Minor Structural Refinement

The reviewer suggests reducing minor conceptual repetition between Sections 4 and 5.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this useful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we carefully reviewed the text to reduce conceptual repetition between the empirical results and the discussion sections. Several passages were condensed or reformulated in order to improve clarity and analytical precision.

Revision in manuscript

Sections 4 (Results) and 5 (Discussion) were edited to reduce conceptual overlap and improve structural coherence.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows clear improvement in terms of structure, clarity, and methodological transparency. The authors have adequately addressed the previous comments and strengthened the theoretical framing and analytical discussion. The topic is timely and relevant, and the study provides a useful contribution to the literature on EU economic governance and economic security. Overall, the manuscript is well organized and suitable for publication.