Europe’s Slow Emergency: Can the EU Still Build the Future?
The European Union’s competitiveness crisis is not a story of collapse. That is almost the problem. Collapse would be visible and politically clarifying. Europe faces something easier to accommodate: a long period in which daily life remains safe, prosperous and culturally rich while the continent loses control over more of the systems that determine its choices.
Cloud infrastructure, advanced semiconductors, artificial intelligence, batteries, drones, space systems, payment networks and defence technology are not simply profitable industries. They are layers of practical sovereignty. A society that depends on others for them can still regulate, tax, educate and consume. It has less freedom, however, when suppliers, allies or platform owners change their priorities. Europe’s danger is not poverty. It is reduced agency concealed by continued comfort.
The argument can easily become crude. It is tempting to blame welfare states, regulation, high taxes and bureaucrats, then treat the United States or China as models Europe need only imitate. That diagnosis misses what is worth preserving. Labour rights, public services, consumer protection, privacy, environmental standards and distrust of concentrated corporate power are not symptoms of European failure. They are political achievements. The real question is whether Europe can continue to finance and defend them while surrendering too much of the productive, technological and military capacity on which they rest.
A Rich Continent Losing Room to Manoeuvre
For several decades, Europe could postpone many strategic choices because the surrounding order was unusually forgiving. American power carried much of the security burden. Russian energy appeared cheap enough to justify dependence. Chinese manufacturing lowered costs across consumer and industrial markets. American software firms built much of the digital layer used by European businesses, governments and citizens. Globalisation made dependency look like efficiency, while peace made underinvestment look prudent.
Those bargains have not all disappeared, but they have become less dependable. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed the cost of energy dependence and years of military complacency. China now competes in cars, batteries, solar equipment, telecommunications, drones, shipbuilding and other industries Europe once regarded as its own strengths. The United States remains Europe’s indispensable ally, but alliance does not remove the risks of industrial and technological reliance. Artificial intelligence has made compute, chips, cloud capacity, energy and access to models look less like specialised business questions and more like the foundations of state and corporate capability.
This does not mean that every imported technology is a strategic failure. Sovereignty is not autarky, and trade between allies can strengthen all sides. The danger appears when dependence becomes concentrated, difficult to reverse and relevant in a crisis. The Journal’s essays on Europe renting its artificial intelligence and the risk of orbital dependence examine two versions of the same problem: a rational purchasing decision can accumulate into a strategic limitation before anyone formally chooses dependence.
Europe’s social model is therefore not separate from competitiveness. Pensions, healthcare, education, climate investment and social insurance depend on productivity, employment, taxable income, affordable energy and firms able to generate value at scale. A wealthy continent can absorb weak growth for a long time, especially when accumulated capital and institutional quality remain high. It cannot assume that yesterday’s productive base will finance tomorrow’s promises indefinitely.
The Single Market Exists Unevenly
The EU has continental scale in population, output and purchasing power. A European company does not necessarily experience that scale as one market. Expansion still passes through national tax systems, employment rules, regulators, insolvency regimes, procurement practices, stock-option rules, languages and business cultures. A firm founded in Tallinn, Milan, Zagreb or Lisbon may have to become multinational before it has become large.
The OECD’s 2025 survey of the EU and euro area describes weak productivity growth, persistent internal-market barriers and a largely bank-based financial system that channels too little of Europe’s high savings into young innovative firms. It also makes an important distinction often lost in arguments about Brussels: common EU rules can reduce the cost of complying with twenty-seven national regimes, while incomplete integration and inconsistent implementation can recreate fragmentation inside the common framework. Regulation is not automatically the enemy of scale. Badly designed, layered or nationally divergent regulation can be.
This is why the comparison with the United States is useful but incomplete. The United States possesses a federal market, a common language, deep capital pools and national procurement institutions, but it also contains state-level variation, political dysfunction and enormous regional inequality. Europe’s handicap is not simply that it has rules. It is that authority is divided between the Union and member states in ways that make agreement easier than execution and collective scale easier to announce than to use.
The Single Market worked most powerfully where states accepted that national fragmentation cost more than common rules. It remains less complete in services, capital, energy, defence procurement and parts of the digital economy—precisely the areas where modern firms accumulate scale. Europe does not lack size. It often lacks a machinery that lets size compound.
Knowledge Without Conversion
Europe’s problem is not a shortage of knowledge. Eurostat estimates that the EU spent €403.1 billion on research and development in 2024, with R&D intensity at 2.2 percent of GDP. The European Innovation Scoreboard also does not describe a continent sinking uniformly into technical stagnation. Its 2026 edition reports that EU innovation performance rose by 11.6 percentage points from 2019 and by 1.7 points from 2025 to 2026, although progress remains uneven and global competitors continue to advance.
These figures sharpen rather than dissolve the problem. Europe has universities, scientists, engineers, industrial companies, public research programmes and substantial savings. It is less reliable at converting those assets into firms that grow quickly, platforms that set defaults and industries that retain production as technology matures. A paper is not a product, a pilot is not a supply chain, and a grant-funded consortium is not necessarily an organisation capable of competing for decades.
The United States and China built different conversion machines. The American version combines deep capital markets, venture finance, federal procurement, defence and space demand, universities linked to commercial networks, liquid exits and a high tolerance for private failure. It also produces waste, concentration and severe inequality. China combines state direction, infrastructure, manufacturing depth, protected scale and long planning horizons, while accepting political control, overcapacity and misallocated capital on a scale Europe would not tolerate. Neither model can be copied whole, nor should it be.
Europe possesses fragments of both systems without fully integrating either. It has markets without a fully unified scaling arena, public money without consistently strategic procurement, research without enough commercial pathways, and household savings without sufficiently deep routes into productive risk. The problem is not that Europeans refuse to innovate. It is that the institutions around invention too often disperse effort before it becomes power.
There are obvious counterexamples. ASML controls a critical position in advanced semiconductor equipment. Airbus shows that long-term European industrial cooperation can build a global champion. European firms remain formidable in pharmaceuticals, machinery, energy systems, aerospace, materials and specialised manufacturing. These cases disprove any claim of general incapacity. They also reveal what success requires: concentrated technical advantage, patient investment, demanding customers, manufacturing depth and institutions willing to sustain a project beyond a political cycle.
Regulation, Strategy and the Cost of Delay
Europe’s regulatory power is real. Rules on privacy, competition, product safety and environmental standards influence companies well beyond the EU because access to the Single Market matters. This is not a consolation prize. Markets require rules, and technological systems can impose costs on citizens long before governments understand them. Europe is right to ask what platforms, algorithms and industrial products do to people rather than treating deployment as its own justification.
Rule-making becomes a strategic weakness only when it substitutes for the capabilities being governed. If foreign companies own the cloud infrastructure, operating systems, advanced chips, app stores, advertising markets, payment rails and frontier models, European law operates on terrain largely shaped elsewhere. The problem is not that Europe regulates before it builds. In many areas it does both. The problem is that its regulatory institutions are more mature, more centralised and more politically usable than its institutions for financing, procuring and scaling new capacity.
The pattern is often described as blindness, but delay is more accurate. Europe identified the risks of Russian energy dependence before 2022, the fragmentation of defence procurement before the war in Ukraine, the weakness of its capital markets before the current competitiveness debate and its dependence on foreign digital platforms before the arrival of generative AI. Recognition did not automatically produce concentrated action. Delay reduced political conflict in the present while allowing infrastructure, talent, market share and operating experience to accumulate elsewhere.
It would now be inaccurate to say that the EU has responded only with speeches. The Draghi report gave institutional form to the competitiveness problem, and the Commission has since launched a Competitiveness Compass built around closing the innovation gap, decarbonising industry and reducing dependencies. The agenda includes a Savings and Investments Union, a start-up and scale-up strategy, a new Single Market strategy, clean-industry measures, AI infrastructure and changes to public procurement.
These steps matter. They do not yet settle the argument. A strategy can identify the correct barriers while leaving them intact; legislation can simplify one layer while member states preserve another; a funding programme can disperse money without creating competitive pressure. The relevant test is not how many initiatives exist, but whether firms experience a larger market, capital moves across borders more easily, procurement creates demanding first customers, energy becomes more affordable and new infrastructure arrives before dependence hardens.
The Welfare State Needs a Productive Base
Europe’s caution has a history. Post-war integration was designed partly to domesticate power by binding states into law, trade, procedure and compromise. Its slowness is not merely bureaucratic incompetence; it is connected to a political order built to prevent domination and absorb conflict. The difficulty is that institutions optimised to stop rash action can also obstruct timely action when the cost of delay is dispersed and the benefits of reform arrive later.
The Draghi report is compelling because it links slow productivity, demographic pressure, energy costs, security and investment rather than treating them as separate files. In an ageing continent, productivity growth becomes more important because employment growth cannot carry the same burden. Without a stronger productive base, politics turns into distribution under pressure: pensions against schools, defence against healthcare, climate investment against household income and debt against taxation.
This does not make every pro-growth reform wise. Growth can be captured by incumbents, environmental costs can be hidden and public investment can turn into subsidy without discipline. Europe should not preserve an uncompetitive firm merely because it is European, or use sovereignty as a ceremonial label for expensive projects with no credible route to capability. The point is not to spend more indiscriminately. It is to build institutions that can distinguish strategic investment from protected mediocrity.
That distinction requires a greater tolerance for visible failure. Innovation policy often celebrates successful companies after the uncertainty has disappeared, then designs programmes that make early failure politically embarrassing. Venture capital, procurement and bankruptcy rules all determine who is allowed to fail without being destroyed. A system that demands certainty before funding new firms will mostly finance incumbents, consultants and projects whose ambition has been reduced until approval is safe.
Every serious reform also threatens a settled arrangement. National governments resist giving up discretion. Regulators defend jurisdiction. Banks resist deeper capital-market competition. Incumbents prefer subsidies to new entrants. Voters want growth without disruption, climate investment without infrastructure, defence without higher spending and European scale without any transfer of national control. Each preference is understandable in isolation. Together they describe the mechanism of drift.
Too Late for What?
There is no single date after which Europe becomes irrelevant. Different industries have different clocks. The first era of global consumer platforms has largely been shaped without a European champion on the scale of the largest American firms. Recreating a hyperscale cloud industry from scratch would be extraordinarily difficult. The frontier-AI race is capital-intensive and already concentrated, but its commercial and institutional consequences are far from settled. Applied AI, industrial systems, robotics, energy technology, biotechnology, defence, space, quantum technologies and advanced materials remain open fields rather than finished contests.
Europe does not need dominance in every layer. Strategic autonomy becomes self-defeating when it turns into a demand to duplicate every foreign product regardless of cost or quality. It needs enough capability in critical systems to preserve choice, enough competitive pressure to prevent sovereignty projects from becoming sheltered monopolies, and enough integration for successful firms to scale before they leave or are acquired.
The programme is familiar because Europe has discussed it for years: complete more of the Single Market, deepen capital markets, make stock options and insolvency less hostile to scaling, use procurement as an early customer, build abundant low-carbon energy and grids, integrate defence demand, connect universities more effectively to firms and simplify rules whose burden exceeds their public value. The familiarity is not evidence that the programme is wrong. It is evidence that diagnosis has outrun implementation.
Nor is implementation only a Brussels problem. Many of the barriers blamed on “the EU” are national rules, national vetoes, national procurement habits and national reluctance to accept competition. Member states often demand that Europe act while protecting the instruments through which it could act. A union of democracies will always move differently from a centralised state. That makes concentration harder, not optional.
The Slow Emergency
Europe may remain one of the world’s best places to live while becoming less able to shape the conditions of that life. Its cities can stay beautiful, its universities respected and its welfare states recognisable even as more of the infrastructure beneath them is financed, built and controlled elsewhere. That is why relative decline is politically difficult to confront: the evidence arrives as lost options and weaker bargaining positions rather than as visible ruin.
The answer is not a fantasy of restored empire, nor a European imitation of the harshest features of American or Chinese power. Europe’s values are not an obstacle to capacity. They are the reason capacity matters. Privacy, social protection, democratic control and environmental restraint carry less weight when they survive only as conditions placed on technologies imported from systems organised around different priorities.
The EU has started to describe the problem more honestly and has put several relevant policies in motion. The unresolved issue is whether its institutions can turn recognition into timely concentration: capital into firms, research into production, procurement into markets, and continental size into operational scale. Europe has repeatedly demonstrated that it can act once a crisis becomes intolerable. The slow emergency asks whether it can act while meaningful choices still remain.
Europe is unlikely to disappear, collapse or become poor. The more plausible danger is that it remains prosperous enough to postpone reform and dependent enough to discover, one sector at a time, that postponement was itself a decision.
Comments
Post a Comment