
Between Solidarity and Self-Interest within the European Union: Critical Technologies, Power Struggles, and Backdoor Fragmentation
Recommended reading:
Jora, O.D., Pană, M.C., Iacob, M., Apăvăloaei, M.A., Iatan, P.R. and Jebeli-Bakht-Ara, H., 2025. Why “All for One” Might Not Last “Once and for All”? The (Un)Dissimulated Geopolitical and Institutional Competition in a Technology-Tensed European Union. Amfiteatru Economic, 27 (68), pp. 12-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2025/68/12.
View more: https://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_3063.pdf.
Industrial Revolutions (IR) have fundamentally revolved around advancements in information and communication technologies (IT&C), facilitating both global integration and connectivity. The power of steam not only moved goods but also transported people and ideas across borders (IR 1.0). This was followed by the rise of electricity, mass production, and the standardization of interchangeable parts (IR 2.0). The subsequent electronic era, marked by the proliferation of microprocessors, set the stage for the widespread diffusion of the internet (IR 3.0). Today, we witness the zenith of these transformations with the emergence of artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cryptocurrencies, and the metaverse (IR 4.0).
Each of these industrial transformations has enhanced connectivity—between individuals, organizations, communities, and states—serving as a double-edged sword. On one hand, technological progress has fostered peaceful cooperation and economic competition, both essential drivers of prosperity. On the other, it has also contributed to persistent conflicts and geopolitical tensions. Given that IT&C increasingly shapes our social and economic structures, it inevitably raises a pressing question: How do we manage resource scarcities, particularly those that are technologically critical and politically contested? Do we address them through solidarity or resort to isolationism?
Regional institutional frameworks have long been a subject of intense debate, and the European Union (EU) is no exception. The intellectual discourse surrounding regional integration has consistently oscillated between conflicting paradigms. The post-WWII evolution of Europe has been shaped by tensions between absolute sovereignty and the pursuit of regional peace (achieved through democratic compromises on national autonomy), between national independence and the pragmatic necessity of global relevance (requiring strategic alliances with major powers), and between policy flexibility and the constraints of interstate agreements (often uniform in principle but uneven in practice).
These debates reflect the broader question of how nation-states position themselves in relation to supranational structures such as the EU, as well as how they navigate competing national interests within the Union itself.
The EU, having achieved an advanced stage of internal economic liberalization through its single market, now projects a more nuanced stance externally, encapsulated in the term “open strategic autonomy”—a paradoxical blend of free trade and self-sufficiency. Four years after its introduction, this concept has produced mixed outcomes. While the EU has developed new trade and investment mechanisms, progress in defense and security remains limited. Moreover, the geopolitical landscape complicates the EU’s ambitions for autonomy: the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the European ramifications of US-China tensions, the decline of multilateralism, the fragmentation of the global economy, and the “weaponization” of economic interdependencies, all challenge the Union’s strategic positioning. As the EU reassesses its previously “naïve” approach to globalization, pledging to respond more assertively to external threats, it must also turn inward and evaluate how fragmented its pursuit of autonomy has become at the level of individual member states, particularly in an era of “polycrisis.”
This proposed article offers an original perspective by challenging the conventional, often monolithic portrayal of the EU. It highlights the persistent influence of national interests within the Union—manifested not only in diplomatic rhetoric and domestic political agendas but also in the operation of EU institutions and policies. Two analytical frameworks will guide our inquiry. First, geopolitical competition, typically examined in terms of EU relations with external actors (the US, China, Russia, and intergovernmental coalitions such as BRICS), but rarely explored in terms of intra-EU dynamics. Second, institutional competition, which often overlooks the diverse institutional configurations within Europe itself, despite their significant divergences from external counterparts. While the focus is primarily on political competition between EU member states, the economic dimension remains relevant, as corporate strategies can serve as a proxy for national power struggles.
The structure of this paper reflects its exploratory nature, employing a methodology suited to theoretical and historical reassessments, which may serve as a foundation for more targeted analyses. It unfolds in three stages.
- The first section examines the two principal modes of international interaction—power (geopolitical competition) and rules (institutional competition)—and their manifestations within the EU, with attention to technological shifts.
- The second section introduces the concept of “strategic trade”, assessing its implementation at both the EU and national levels, with a focus on disparities in how member states engage with Industry 4.0 transformations.
- The final section explores two specific avenues through which EU member states enhance their competitive edge based on historical legacies: the post-colonial economic relations of former Western metropolises and the distinct “subregionalisms” emerging among Eastern European countries.