Author: Dorothée Falkenberg
Economic security has rapidly moved to the centre of European policymaking. As geopolitical competition intensifies and economic tools are increasingly used for strategic purposes, the EU faces a growing challenge: how can it act as a geoeconomic power when trade policy is decided at EU level while many security decisions remain in the hands of Member States?
Our new publication addresses this governance dilemma. In “Bridging the governance gap in EU Economic Security: Recommendations for institutional reform at the trade-security nexus,” BKHS fellow Dorothée Falkenberg analyses how the current institutional architecture of EU economic security creates coordination gaps between Brussels and the Member States and how these gaps can be closed through targeted institutional reforms.
The paper shows that the EU already possesses a wide toolbox of economic security instruments, from export controls and investment screening to anti-coercion measures. Yet these instruments are often deployed in a fragmented way because responsibilities for trade and security remain institutionally separated.
Drawing on interviews with EU and national policymakers, the paper maps the current governance architecture and develops concrete recommendations for strengthening coordination across institutions and Member States.
Key takeaways:
#1 The EU’s economic security governance is not yet adapted to the current geoeconomic environment.
Siloed responsibilities between EU trade policy and largely national security policies hinder strategic coordination, allowing unilateral national actions to generate spillover effects across the integrated Single Market.
#2 The challenge lies not in the absence of instruments, but in their fragmented and uncoordinated use.
The EU has developed a broad economic security toolbox, yet without a governance framework that systematically brings together Member States and EU actors, these instruments cannot be deployed strategically or coherently.
#3 Existing reform proposals fail to reconcile ambition with political feasibility.
Incremental approaches risk falling short of addressing structural weaknesses, while more far-reaching institutional redesigns are constrained by political realities and the impracticality of rapid treaty change in a fast-moving geoeconomic context.
#4 Closing governance gaps requires targeted institutional innovation within existing structures.
Strengthening economic security governance depends on creating dedicated coordination bodies and clear leadership – potentially through a HR/VP for Economic Security – to ensure strategic coherence across trade and security policies without altering the treaties.
