OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026
154
THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION PROCESS IN TIMES OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC:
FRAGMENTATION VS. SOLIDARITY
ANTÓNIO PORTUGAL DUARTE
portugal@fe.uc.pt
He is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra (Portugal) and a
researcher affiliated with the Centre for Business and Economics Research (CeBER) at the same
institution. He was an Honorary Visiting Research Fellow at Birkbeck College, University of
London, and a Visiting Professor at the University of Economics in Bratislava and the Belgrade
Banking Academy. He is the author of the book “O Sistema Monetário Internacional: Uma
Perspectiva Histórico-Económica” and author or co-author of several papers and book chapters.
His main areas of research are European integration and international macroeconomics.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5388-0051
FÁTIMA TERESA CASTELO DA ASSUNÇÃO SOL MURTA
fasol@fe.uc.pt
She is a Professor at the University of Coimbra (Portugal), Faculty of Economics. She is a
Research Fellow for CeBER – Centre for Business and Economics Research with PhD in
Economics). Her research interests include banking economics and financial markets. She has
published in journals such as Small Business Economics, Journal of Economic Studies, Eurasian
Economic Review, Studies in Economics and Finance, Scientific Annals of Economics or Journal of
Financial Crime. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7652-7405
LICÍNIA SIMÃO
lsimao@fe.uc.pt
PhD. She is Vice-Dean and Associate Professor with Habilitation at the School of Economics,
University of Coimbra (Portugal), teaching International Relations. She a Senior Researcher at
the Centre for Social Studies, where she is co-coordinator of the research group on
“(Semi)peripheral Capitalism: Crises and Alternatives”. From 2018 to 2023, she served as an
advisor to two Portuguese Ministers of Defence, and was Coordinator of the Atlantic Centre, from
2021 to 2023. Prof. Simão has held visiting research fellowships at the Centre for European
Policy Studies in Brussels, and at the Centre for European Studies in Ottawa, and is currently a
member of the Advisory Board at the Georgian Institute of Politics, in Tbilisi, and of the Ocean
Regions Program, at the University of Pretoria Her research interests include foreign policy
analysis and security studies, focusing on European foreign, security and defence policies, conflict
management in the countries of the former-Soviet Union, as well as Atlantic security and Ocean
Politics.
Abstract
The article analyzes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the European integration
process, particularly focusing on its economic component. The pandemic effects were
particularly severe in the Tourism and Hospitality and Aviation sectors, most affected by
measures to combat the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as confinement and border closures. Some
of the main consequences caused by the COVID-19 pandemic crisis on European countries
are explained according to a critical assessment of the success of some public intervention
measures implemented by policy makers to address it. The research carried out highlighted
important lessons: i) solidarity between the different EU Member States was fundamental to
the success of the vaccination process; ii) better health increased labor supply and
productivity, contributing decisively to economic growth in the EU; iii) neither the tourism nor
aviation sectors were prepared to deal with major health-related crises, and iv) economic
recovery will take several years.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
155
Keywords
Enlargement, macroeconomic impacts, European integration, COVID-19 pandemic, solidarity.
Resumo
O artigo analisa o impacto da pandemia da COVID-19 no processo de integração europeia,
centrando-se particularmente na sua vertente económica. Os efeitos da pandemia foram
especialmente graves nos setores do turismo, hotelaria e aviação, os mais afetados pelas
medidas de combate ao vírus SARS-CoV-2, tais como o confinamento e o encerramento das
fronteiras. Algumas das principais consequências causadas pela crise da pandemia da COVID-
19 nos países europeus são explicadas com base numa avaliação crítica do sucesso de
algumas medidas de intervenção pública implementadas pelos decisores políticos para a
enfrentar. A investigação realizada destacou lições importantes: i) a solidariedade entre os
diferentes Estados-Membros da UE foi fundamental para o sucesso do processo de vacinação;
ii) a melhoria da saúde aumentou a oferta de mão de obra e a produtividade, contribuindo
decisivamente para o crescimento económico na UE; iii) nem o setor do turismo nem o da
aviação estavam preparados para lidar com grandes crises relacionadas com a saúde; e iv) a
recuperação económica levará vários anos.
Palavras-chave
Alargamento, impactos macroeconómicos, integração europeia, pandemia de COVID-19,
solidariedade.
How to cite this article
Duarte, António Portugal, Murta, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol & Simão, Licínia (2026).
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic: Fragmentation vs. Solidarity.
Janus.net, e-journal of international relations, VOL. 17, Nº. 1, May 2026, pp. 154-175.
https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.17.1.8
Article submitted on 27 March 2025 and accepted on 15 December 2025.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
156
THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION PROCESS IN TIMES OF COVID-19
PANDEMIC: FRAGMENTATION VS. SOLIDARITY
1
,
2
ANTÓNIO PORTUGAL DUARTE
FÁTIMA TERESA CASTELO DA ASSUNÇÃO SOL MURTA
LICÍNIA SIMÃO
Introduction
On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of
COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as
a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Shortly thereafter, on March 11,
2020, COVID-19 was declared a pandemic.
With greater or lesser intensity, all Member States of the European Union (EU) were
affected by this pandemic. Its effects were particularly severe in the Tourism and
Hospitality and Aviation sectors. Faced with the need to provide emergency response
against the negative socio-economic impact of COVID-19 and the need to support
countries' recovery, the EU and its Member States, implemented a series of measures to
protect the health and well-being of its citizens, to strengthen national health systems
and to limit the spread of the virus. The development, production and availability of
vaccines and the implementation of public intervention policies to support employment,
businesses and the economy became priorities.
The first measures taken by States to combat and control the COVID-19 pandemic were
essentially measures to impose confinements, ban travel and close borders. These were
political decisions that went against the common principles and values that guided the
creation of the EU, as they limited the free movement of people, goods, services and
capital within the European space (Duarte & Sol Murta, 2024). The limitation of
fundamental rights during this period has been documented and research on this topic
1
Acknowledgements: Previous versions of this article were presented at the seminar “A construção europeia:
quatro décadas de reflexão em Coimbra”, June 23rd, 2023. The authors would like to thank all the participants
for their valuable insights.
2
This work has been funded by national Portuguese funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a
Tecnologia, I.P., Project UIDB/05037/2020 with DOI 10.54499/UIDB/05037/2020, as well as through FCT –
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., Project LA/P/0047/2020 with DOI 10.54499/LA/P/0047/2020.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
157
has highlighted how the assessment of impacts needs to account for the existing contexts
and variations across the EU (Grogan, 2022).
Given this reality, this work aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
the European integration process, particularly on the budgetary management of crises
(Musiałkowska & Idczak, 2021). The methodology employed in this study is based on a
descriptive statistical analysis of the macroeconomic effects of the COVID‑19 pandemic
on a geographically diverse set of EU Member States (Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland,
Portugal and Sweden) selected to capture different economic structures, political
contexts and levels of exposure to the vaccination process. The empirical approach is
used to infer the main macroeconomic consequences of the pandemic in these Member
States of the EU and, more particularly, its impact on both the Tourism and Hospitality
and Aviation sectors. Our purpose will also be to ascertain whether, following the COVID-
19 pandemic crisis and the implementation of measures to mitigate and combat it, the
budgetary effort carried out increased the risk of fragmentation of the EU or, on the
contrary, opened doors for a new phase of European integration, supported by a basis of
greater institutional and financial solidarity between the so-called “frugal” countries and
the countries most indebted and affected by the pandemic.
The contribution of this work to the literature results not only from the fact that it enables
a better understanding of the behavior of the Member States of the European Union in a
crisis context, but also by allowing some lessons to be drawn for the future, namely about
the way in which countries must coordinate and respond in pandemic situations.
The work is structured into five sections. In addition to this introduction, in section 2, the
literature review is carried out. In section 3, the macroeconomic consequences of the
COVID-19 pandemic on European integration are analyzed. Its general impact on some
Member States and, more particularly, on their Tourism, Hospitality and Aviation sectors
is investigated. In section 4, a critical assessment of the policies implemented to combat
the pandemic crisis is made and some lessons for the future are drawn. Finally, in section
5, the main conclusions of this research are presented.
Literature review
The economy of the COVID-19 pandemic, “Coronanomics” as it is called by Eichengreen
(2020), marked the year 2020 and beyond in a very significant way, and it is therefore
pertinent to analyze its impact on the European integration process.
Given that this is a global public health problem, which has unexpectedly affected all
countries, most of the initial work carried out on the topic focused fundamentally on the
immediate and most visible impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., on the number of
contagions, deaths and hospital capacity to provide health care in response to the disease
(see, e.g., Altig et al., 2020, for the USA and the United Kingdom; Ataguba, 2020, for
countries in the African continent or Chan, 2022, in the case of China), leaving the
analysis of its macroeconomic effects largely unaddressed, namely in terms of product
growth, public and private consumption, investment, exports and unemployment rate.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
158
Even so, it is possible to find in the literature some important works that sought to
investigate the macroeconomic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis in the
European integration process
3
.
Starting from a counterfactual analysis developed from an ARIMA (Autoregressive
Integrated Moving Average) prediction model, Duarte et al. (2022) examine the behavior
of a set of macroeconomic variables (Gross Domestic Product (GDP), public debt, inflation
rate, public deficit and unemployment rate) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic
against a hypothetical situation without a pandemic in the EU-27 countries and, in
particular, in four of its Member States – Germany, Spain, Italy and Portugal. As
expected, the results point to significantly better performance of all variables in the four
countries and the EU, had the COVID-19 pandemic crisis not existed. In a scenario
without the pandemic, all countries would have higher levels of output, however,
presenting relatively weaker economic growth rates when compared to the pandemic
situation, namely in 2021 and 2022. The results also point to the occurrence of budget
surpluses in Germany and Portugal, in 2020, 2021 and 2022, as well as a sharp reduction
in Spanish public debt if the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak had not occurred. In 2021 and 2022,
there would still be a lower inflation rate for the EU-27, Germany, Spain and Italy, after
a very sharp rise in prices in 2020. With regard to the labor market, with the exception
of Germany and the EU-27, where the unemployment rate would be relatively higher,
especially in 2022, the other countries would record lower unemployment rates if,
hypothetically, the pandemic context had not occurred.
Similar results were also found in studies carried out for other EU economies, as is the
case, e.g., by Albu et al. (2020) and Radulescu et al. (2020), on the economic impacts
of the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania; Sanfelici (2020), for a socioeconomic analysis of
the Italian response to the pandemic crisis; Pedauga et al. (2021), on the macroeconomic
effects of the disease on the Spanish economy; and Silva and Duarte (2021), for the case
of Portugal and the rest of the euro area, when they analyzed the macroeconomic
consequences of a shock to the labor supply in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.
Dukić et al. (2021) investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on GDP,
unemployment and public debt of the EU, concluding that there is a strong correlation
between these variables. However, they go further, stating that in addition to the
economic crisis, there is a crisis in the EU's national health systems, which require
significant investments. In this context, the authors consider that it is difficult to expect
a more prominent economic recovery until the global pandemic is over. Their results also
suggest that a few more years are needed for European countries to compensate for the
economic losses caused by the pandemic, so that without greater cooperation and
financial solidarity between Member States, it will be difficult for new advances to be
made in the process of European integration.
Based on a set of interviews with public health experts from several EU Member States
and officials from the European Commission, carried out between May 2020 and August
2020, Gontariuk et al. (2021) largely share the previous assessment, demonstrating that
the EU's limited mandate in the field of health makes it difficult to take appropriate
actions to prevent and combat outbreaks of infectious diseases, such as the COVID-19
3
A review of this literature can be found in Duarte & Sol Murta (2024), which we follow closely in this work.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
159
pandemic. In the authors’ view, the European Commission fulfilled its role of coordinating
and supporting Member States, facilitating networks and information exchange.
However, they point out that the political challenges underlying EU decision-making on
health emergencies still make it difficult to have an aligned response. In fact, the
expansion of EU institutions’ powers on health governance, as a result of the pandemic,
have been singled out as an ad-hoc deepening of European integration, beyond what is
stated in the founding treaties (Books and Geyer, 2020).
Sapir (2020) investigates why the economies of southern EU countries have been more
affected by the COVID-19 crisis than some northern European countries. For the author,
the severity of confinement measures, the percentage of tourist activity in the economy
and the quality of governance play a significant role in explaining differences in economic
losses in different EU countries. Depending on the country groupings used for
comparison, Sapir (2020) concluded that differences in GDP losses were between 30 and
50 percent due to the strictness of the lockdown, between 35 and 45 percent due to the
quality of governance, and between 15 and 25 percent due to the weight of tourism in
the economy. However, public debt did not play a relevant role, nevertheless suggesting
that the European Central Bank’s (ECB) pandemic emergency purchasing program was
effective.
Sapir’s (2020) conclusions are particularly important as they may have implications for
the allocation of the so-called Recovery and Resilience Fund (FRR) between recovery and
resilience expenditure. For the author, supporting recovery through a combination of
demand and supply initiatives is important to ensure that countries recover as quickly as
possible from the COVID-19 crisis, without causing too much damage to their economies.
However, in many countries, especially in the Southern EU, hardest hit by the COVID-19
crisis, the poor quality of their governments has had a negative impact on their economic
resilience, as demonstrated by the relatively large size of their GDP shocks. In this sense,
it is crucial that FRR programs also devote sufficient attention (and naturally resources)
to improving the quality of governance in these countries. This approach is not new, if
we consider the support the EU grants to candidate countries to improve governance
systems, and also if we consider the application of governance-related conditionality in
the EU’s external relations, namely on the Development Assistance. Internal
conditionality, nevertheless, is politically harder to impose.
More recently, Duarte et al. (2023) coordinated an investigation carried out by a vast
group of academics belonging to universities and research centers from several European
countries, and also from other continents, where they sought to study, from different
dimensions (political, social, economic, philosophical) the process of European integration
in its double aspect of crisis and resilience in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The main objective of this research was to bring together in a single work four different
perspectives for European integration in a post-pandemic context: i) the perspective of
Euro Zone countries; ii) the perspective of candidate countries to the Euro Zone; iii) the
“vision” to the East of the candidate countries to the European Union, and iv) the view of
the rest of the world. Most contributions pointed to a shift in the European integration
process in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on greater solidarity and
economic and institutional cooperation between the different Member States, rather than
a possible fragmentation of the European community space.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
160
Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis on European Integration
The COVID-19 pandemic that hit Europe and the world at the beginning of 2020 led
European countries to close their borders, preventing the normal flows of goods, services,
people and capital. In doing so, member states risked common principles and values that
guided the creation of the EU, namely the functioning of the common market. Created
by the Treaty of Rome in 1958, the EU common market aimed to liberalize trade between
member states with the purpose of increasing economic prosperity and contributing to
“an ever-closer union between the peoples of Europe”
4
. The COVID-19 pandemic crisis
has brought back some obstacles to the four freedoms (free movement of goods,
services, people and capital). Companies temporarily closed, causing huge endogenous
negative shocks, both in supply and demand, with devastating macroeconomic effects,
firstly in the production and consumption of countries, particularly from the European
Community.
The methodology employed in this study is based on a descriptive statistical analysis of
the macroeconomic effects of the COVID‑19 pandemic on a geographically diverse set of
EU Member States (Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Sweden) selected to
capture different economic structures, political contexts and levels of exposure to the
vaccination process. Using harmonized data from Eurostat and from European Center for
Disease Prevention and Control, the analysis examines key macroeconomic indicators as
well as sector‑specific metrics. We construct and present figures that illustrate the
behavior of macroeconomic variables and tourism and the performance of the tourism
and aviation sectors over the period 2015-2024, thereby covering several years before,
during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. By comparing these trends, the study identifies
cross‑country differences in the magnitude of the shock and the subsequent recovery.
The empirical approach is used to infer the main macroeconomic consequences of the
pandemic in these Member States of the EU and, more particularly, its impact on both
the Tourism and Hospitality and Aviation sectors. A critical analysis is then deployed to
place these economic results on the literature on European integration and the expected
results in terms of potential fragmentation of the political and economic landscape of the
European Union.
General Impact
To better understand the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis on European
integration, let us start by analyzing the real GDP evolution (at constant prices), of some
European countries in comparison with the set of twenty-seven EU countries (EU- 27)
and the Euro Zone.
The countries were chosen considering their geographic diversity, but also political and
economic specificities. It was therefore decided to include countries from Southern
Europe (Portugal, Italy and Spain), Central Europe (Germany), Eastern Europe (Poland)
and Northern Europe (Sweden) in the analysis. In addition to Portugal, which was the
Southern European country with the highest vaccination rate against COVID-19 in 2021,
4
For more details, see Duarte & Sol Murta (2024).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
161
we included Italy and Spain because these were the countries that first suffered the
impact of the disease and had the highest number of registered cases in the first three
waves of the pandemic. The choice of Germany was due to the fact that it is the economy
with the greatest capacity and financial availability to carry out economic policy measures
to mitigate the negative effects caused by the pandemic. A somewhat similar decision
guided the choice of Sweden, and this country was included in the sample also because
the Swedish welfare state is traditionally characterized by a high level of social protection,
based on universal coverage and solidarity, by a vast public sector, a labor market largely
supported by collective agreements and by recording relatively high rates of economic
growth. We therefore sought to determine whether these structures were strongly
affected by the pandemic crisis or, on the contrary, demonstrated great resilience in the
face of the pandemic situation. Poland, on the other hand, was included in the analysis
as an Eastern European country where recent political divisions have created major
obstacles to the vaccination process against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As a comparative
reference, we also included the EU-27 and the Euro Zone in the analysis.
Figure 1 shows the evolution of the real GDP growth rate for this group of countries
between 2015 and 2024. Table A.1 in the appendix shows the corresponding real GDP
growth rates.
Figure 1. GDP – real growth rate (%)
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/nama_10_gdp).
Looking at Figure 1, it is clear that the year 2020, corresponding to the first wave of the
COVID-19 pandemic, was marked by a sharp decline in real GDP, and consequently in
living standards, across all the countries analyzed. Spain recorded the steepest
contraction, with real GDP falling by 11.2 percent followed by Italy (-9 percent) and
Portugal (-8.3 percent). In 2021, all countries returned to a positive growth trajectory,
-15,0
-10,0
-5,0
0,0
5,0
10,0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
%
EU - 27 Euro area Germany Spain
Italy Poland Portugal Sweden
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
162
with Italy showing the strongest performance, registering an 8.3 percent increase in real
GDP compared with the previous year. In 2022, although all countries continued to grow,
Portugal was the only one to accelerate, posting a real GDP growth rate of 6. percent. By
2024, GDP growth has stabilized across countries, with Germany experiencing a decline,
while Spain, Poland and Portugal recorded the highest growth rates, although data from
that period reflects other structural and geopolitical conditionalities impacting the
European economies, including the war in Ukraine.
For a more detailed analysis of all countries covered, Figure 2 shows the evolution of the
various components of real GDP (private consumption, public consumption,
investment/gross capital formation, exports), excluding imports. Again, the
corresponding annual rates of change are shown in the appendix, in Tables A.2 to A.5.
Figure 2. GDP main components – real growth rate (%)
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/nama_10_gdp).
-10,0
-8,0
-6,0
-4,0
-2,0
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
%Final consumption expenditure
-4,0
-2,0
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0 %Final consumption expenditure of general
government
-30,0
-20,0
-10,0
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
%Gross capital formation
-25,0
-20,0
-15,0
-10,0
-5,0
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
%Exports of goods and services
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
163
As can be seen, in general and for the different countries presented, the components of
real GDP fell sharply in 2020. The strongest declines were observed in the exports of
Spain (-20.1 percent), Portugal (-18.6 percent) and Italy (-13.5 percent). This behavior
can be explained by the fact that these countries are highly dependent on tourism. The
lockdowns, travel bans and other measures taken in the face of the pandemic have
dramatically affected all tourism and travel activities and contributed to this negative
impact on exports. The only component of real GDP that did not decline (with the
exception of Sweden) was government consumption. The economic policies adopted to
support households and the economy naturally led to a substantial increase in real public
consumption in most countries. It should be noted that in Germany and Poland, public
consumption even grew by more than 4 percent in both 2020 and 2021. In Poland, public
consumption also increased in 2023 and 2024, at a level higher than in the other
countries, possibly due to its proximity to the war in Ukraine. Finally, Figure 3 shows
the evolution of the unemployment rate in the countries mentioned. Table A.6 in the
appendix documents the figures for this variable.
Figure 3. Unemployment rate (%)
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/une_rt_a).
As expected, the unemployment rate (number of unemployed/labor force) increased
across the board in 2020, but still only slightly, considering the brutality of the negative
shock caused by the pandemic situation. Once again, one of the strongest effects was
recorded in Sweden (150 basis points). Given the 'protective' nature of the Swedish state,
this result is not surprising. It could possibly be explained by the degree of severity and
surprise of the shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which caught even public
decision-makers 'off guard' in countries that are traditionally considered to have more of
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
%
EU-27 Euro Area Germany Spain Italy Poland Portugal Sweden
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
164
a welfare state. Sweden is seen as the model where the welfare state has taken the most
sophisticated form (Bernitz, 2007), and it was therefore expected that the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on the labor market in this country would be minimized, which in
fact and unexpectedly did not happen.
Impact on the tourism, hospitality and aviation sector
As we noted in the previous section, the real GDP of the various European countries
analyzed fell significantly in 2020, especially the exports component. This was largely
due to the lockdowns and border closures that hampered tourism activities, both
domestically and abroad. Among the various countries analyzed, Portugal, Spain and
Italy, the southern European countries where tourism is predominant were the most
affected, as can be seen in Figure 4 (and corresponding Table A.7 in the appendix)
through the analysis of the number of nights spent in tourist establishments. As might
be expected, after the measures taken to alleviate the crisis caused by the COVID-19
pandemic, it was also in these countries that tourist activity grew most, in the years that
followed.
Figure 4. Nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/tour_occ_ninat).
In line with this behavior, the occupancy rate of tourist establishments also fell sharply
in 2020, as can be seen in Figure 5 (and Table A.8 in the appendix). On the other hand,
2021 and 2022 were years of recovery for tourism in most of the countries analyzed, but
there is no doubt that the new growth trend in this sector of activity was more
pronounced in the three southern European countries, where the vaccination rates and
the set of measures to mitigate the pandemic crisis were also more successful. In fact,
this seems to suggest that part of the reasons why vaccination was such a priority in
-80,00
-60,00
-40,00
-20,00
0,00
20,00
40,00
60,00
80,00
100,00
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
%
EU - 27 Germany Spain Italy Poland Portugal Sweden
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
165
some countries is due to human health improvement, but also to economic performance,
as vaccination schemes would allow for a more structured reopening of tourist-related
economic activities.
Figure 5. Net occupancy rate of bed-places and bedrooms in hotels and similar accommodation
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/tin00180).
As far as the aviation sector is concerned, the measures initially implemented to deal
with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, namely lockdowns and border closures, have had disastrous
consequences, at least in the first phase (2020), as can be easily seen by analyzing
Figure 6 (and Table A.9 in the appendix), which shows the rate of change in reported air
passenger traffic by country.
Air passenger transport fell sharply in 2020 (consider that there was still no pandemic in
the first months of 2020), with some recovery in 2021 and spectacular growth in 2022.
Of all the countries analyzed, Portugal was the country with the smallest decrease in the
number of passengers in 2020, possibly due to its peripheral geographical position in
Europe and its strong links with emigrant communities and African Portuguese-speaking
countries (PALOP).
In 2022, Portugal was also the country with the highest growth in passenger numbers, a
clear reflection of the strong growth in tourism and the brand image that “Portugal is in
fashion”. In recent years, tourism in Portugal has expanded beyond the traditional offer
known as the three "S" tourism (Sun, Sea and Sand), attracting the interest of a wider
range of tourists who visit the country not only for its long white sandy beaches and
sunshine, but also for its gastronomy, history and urban heritage, culture, leisure,
religious activities, outdoor activities and adventure in perfect harmony with nature
(Duarte, 2015; Duarte et al., 2024). Therefore, it is not surprising that once the pandemic
was over and Portugal had the highest vaccination rate in Europe, this was seen as a sign
of safety for visitors. The impact was evident as these measures made Portugal one of
0,
10,
20,
30,
40,
50,
60,
70,
80,
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
%
EU - 27 Germany Spain Italy Poland Portugal Sweden
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
166
the most sought-after destinations in Europe for many people from all corners of the
world, with a very positive direct impact on the number of flights landing at Portuguese
airports, but also on the number of overnight stays and stays in the various types of
tourist accommodation offered by Portugal.
Figure 6. Air Passenger Transport Growth Rate, by Reporting Country
Source: Authors’ own work using data from Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/avia_paoc).
Public Intervention Measures Implemented by the European Union
All EU Member States have been affected by the brutal negative shock caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, following the WHO declaration on January 30, 2020, of the
SARS-CoV-2 outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and shortly
thereafter, on March 11, 2020, of COVID-19 as a pandemic, the EU and its Member
States implemented a package of measures to protect the health and well-being of its
citizens, strengthen national healthcare systems, and limit the spread of the virus.
Simultaneously, public intervention strategies were defined to support employment,
businesses and the economy and work was being done on future recovery (Duarte & Sol
Murta, 2024).
Public Policies to Combat the Pandemic
The first measures taken by States to combat and control the COVID-19 pandemic were
essentially measures to impose confinements, ban travel, and close borders
5
. The
development, production and availability of vaccines against COVID‑19 has also become
a priority. In this sense, on June 18, 2020, the European Commission was mandated by
5
For this and other European Union responses to COVID-19, see Duarte and Sol Murta (2024).
-100,00
-50,00
0,00
50,00
100,00
150,00
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
%
EU - 27 Germany Spain Itly Poland Portugal Sweden
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
167
Member States to begin talks for the joint acquisition of vaccines. It was clearly a new
phase of European cooperation and integration, more based on solidarity than on a
fragmentation of the EU between the so-called “frugal” countries and the most affected
and indebted countries. Initially defending a hard line in the negotiations of the Economic
Recovery Fund and the community budget, the “frugal” countries (Netherlands, Austria,
Denmark and Sweden) would have a lot to lose with a possible fragmentation of the
European single market, or if eventually free circulation of goods, services, people and
capital within the community space would (definitely) cease to exist. Although these
countries are net contributors to the community budget, they are also among the main
beneficiaries of the internal market. In these circumstances, in the discussions on what
should European aid for post-pandemic reconstruction be, accounts of these benefits
were rarely considered (Gandra, 2020). In turn, helping the most indebted countries
affected by the pandemic such as Portugal, Spain and Italy became imperative and
necessary, since countries with greater budgetary capacity could inject massive stimulus
into their economies and state aid to their companies, thus accentuating asymmetries
and the risk of fragmentation in the EU.
Linking economic policies with public health and regional and global solidarity issues, the
management of the COVID-19 pandemic evidenced the pressures bearing on national
and European governance systems alike. At the end of December 2020, the vaccination
process began in Europe. By June 2022, eighteen months later, nine in ten adults (86
percent) of the EU population were fully vaccinated against COVID-19. However, as it
was a voluntary process, adherence by the population was not the same in all countries.
In Table 1, it can be seen for the set of countries in our analysis and EU-27 what
percentage of the population was vaccinated with at least one dose or with complete
vaccination (available) at the end of 2021, one year after the start of the process
6
.
Table 1. Vaccination process - % of the population vaccinated at the end of 2021
Vaccination
EU-27
Germany
Spain
Italy
Poland
Portugal
Swede
n
% of population with at
least one dose
73.0
75.4
84.3
81.3
57.6
91.8
70.7
% of population fully
vaccinated
68.4
71.1
75.1
75.0
55.8
83.5
68.4
Source: European Center for Disease Prevention and Control.
As can be seen, Portugal is the country where the population most adheres to vaccination,
followed by Spain and Italy. Of this group of countries, Poland and Sweden are those
with the lowest vaccination rate.
In March 2021, the European Health Union Program was created, an investment of 5.3
billion euros with the aim of creating stronger and more accessible health systems and
paving the way for a European Health Union. Post-COVID health integration policies have
been spearheading the establishment of the necessary regulatory and inspection bodies
6
More details about the vaccination process in some of these countries, at earlier stages, can be
found in Duarte & Sol Murta (2022).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
168
and creating the financial incentives through programmatic funding. This evidences the
well-studied trend in the EU to use crises as drivers of European integration (Dinan,
Nugent and Paterson, 2017), with member states mandating the Commission to propose
common measure to ensure the political and economic integrity of European policies.
On July 1, 2021, the EU also created the so-called “common European digital certificate
for COVID”. This certificate was in force until June 2023 and was intended to facilitate
the free and safe movement of the population between countries. To support families
and companies, on April 9, 2020, the EU created an instrument (540 billion euros) of
temporary support to mitigate the risks of unemployment in an emergency situation
(SURE) and thus help workers, companies and Member States. On 21 July 2020, Member
States reached an agreement on Next Generation EU, a €750 billion recovery package,
to help the EU face the crisis caused by the pandemic. They also agreed on a long-term
EU budget for 2021-2027 of €1074.3 billion to support investment in digital and green
transitions and resilience
7
. Portugal’s first Recovery and Resilience Plan (PRR) was
presented in April 2021. The PRR is expected to boast significantly the economic recovery
of Europe, in the short term, but most significantly in the medium to long-term, as these
projects aimed at renovating infrastructure and preparing the European for the digital
and green challenges.
The ECB began, in March 2020, the pandemic emergency asset purchase program
(PEPP), totaling 1850 billion euros, with the aim of reducing loan costs and increasing
the granting of credit in the euro area. These net asset purchases ended in April 2022.
In 2021, the ECB also carried out four emergency extended-term refinancing operations
to support the liquidity of the euro area banking system and preserve the smooth
functioning of the money market, among other measures. These measures contributed
to stabilizing the European financial system, creating sustainable bases for the future
recovery of confidence and investment, two fundamental variables for the resumption of
economic growth in the EU.
Critical Assessment of Policy Success: some lessons for the future
A critical assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on some European
countries and the set of public intervention measures implemented in the meantime to
mitigate and combat its negative effects and, in this way, allow the resumption of
economic growth and the process of European integration allows us to draw some
important lessons for the future. Specifically, on the common principles and values that
guided the creation of the EU, namely on the free movement of people, goods, services
and capital, and also on guaranteeing freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,
and promoting peace and stability.
Firstly, the political-economic solidarity achieved between the various EU Member States
following the COVID-19 pandemic was fundamental for the success of the vaccination
process and for helping the most affected and indebted countries. Solidarity without
which it would have been very difficult to overcome the existing public health problem
and combat the negative economic effects caused by the widespread spread of the SARS-
7
For more details, see, e.g., Fernández et al. (2023), Camisão & Vila Maior (2023) and Sebastião (2023).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
169
CoV-2 virus. This solidarity contrasted sharply with the post-2008 financial crisis
measures of austerity imposed on the most indebted countries at the time, and
reinvigorated the commitment to EU integration across Europe and reinforced the
international standing of the EU.
Secondly, better health and the promotion of digitalization as a basis for recovery and
exit from the crisis within the scope of the European plan Next Generation EU has made
it possible to increase the supply of labor and productivity, thus contributing decisively
to the maintenance of employment levels in the EU, particularly, in the Member States
initially most affected by the pandemic. Digitalization was a key issue in the first von der
Leyen Commission, set to push the Union’s economic recovery and to reposition the Union
in a age of great power competition driven by innovation in the digital field and its
supporting infrastructures.
Third, neither the aviation sector nor the European hospitality and tourism industry in
general were prepared to deal with major health-related crises, so public intervention
measures implemented jointly by the EU and Member States were extremely important
for these sectors to be able to maintain their jobs, resume their activity and, in some
cases, restructure the form and mode of business they had carried out until then.
Finally, although as of 2021 there were already signs of resumption of growth in some
Member States, the widespread economic recovery will still take several years and will
be gradual. Given the context of war currently occurring in Ukraine and in the Middle
East, and in the event of the emergence of new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it is
essential to maintain solidarity, cooperation and coordination of economic and social
policies between the various Member States and quickly advance the EU enlargement
process to the East.
Conclusion
All countries in the world have been affected, to a greater or lesser extent, by the COVID-
19 pandemic. The Member States of the European Union were no exception. It was
effectively a negative shock of global dimension, both on the supply and demand sides,
with macroeconomic impacts on all countries and sectors of activity. However, its effects
were particularly intense in the Tourism and Hospitality and Aviation sectors, which were
most affected by globally accepted public intervention measures to mitigate and combat
the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which included confinement, travel bans and border
closures.These political decisions were, however, contrary to the common principles and
values that guided the creation of the EU, namely the free movement of people, goods,
services and capital, but also the guarantee of freedom, equality, rule of law and
promotion of stability.
Based on this “political-institutional dilemma”, this work’s main objective was to analyze
the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis on the European integration process. To this
end, a descriptive statistical analysis was carried out for a geographically distinct set of
EU Member States (Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Sweden). The analysis
revealed that, coinciding with the first wave of the pandemic, the year 2020 was
particularly critical in terms of the behavior of macroeconomic variables. Most countries
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
170
experienced negative real growth rates, sharp reductions in private consumption,
investment and exports, as well as strong disturbances in the functioning of the labor
market and an increase in the unemployment rate.
As would be expected, the negative effects of the pandemic were felt more intensely in
the sectors of activity where the public health measures taken had a direct and immediate
impact on their functioning. Specifically, the Tourism and Hospitality and Aviation sectors.
Among the Member States analyzed, the most affected were the countries of Southern
Europe, whose specialization and economy are heavily dependent on these sectors, thus
increasing the risks of greater asymmetries and fragmentation in the EU. Still, everything
seems to indicate that the institutional and financial solidarity implemented by the
various EU Member States to face the pandemic shock have eliminated this destabilizing
potential of the European integration process.
From the research carried out, it was also possible to draw four important lessons for the
future of European integration: i) cooperation between the various EU Member States
was fundamental to the success of the vaccination process for the majority of the
population, cooperation without which it would have been very difficult to mitigate the
negative human and economic effects caused by the pandemic crisis; ii) better health
increased labor supply and productivity, contributing decisively to economic growth
within the EU; iii) neither the European hotel and tourism industry in general, nor the
aviation sector were prepared to deal with major public health crises, and iv) economic
recovery may take a few years and will certainly be gradual, so that before the context
of war in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas armed conflict, or the possible emergence of new
variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it is essential to maintain solidarity and cooperation
between the various Member States and move quickly towards EU enlargement process
to the East.
References
Albu, L., Preda, C., Lupu, R., Dobrota, C., Calin, G. and C. Boghicevici (2020). Estimates
of Dynamics of the Covid-19 Pandemic and of its Impacts on the Economy. Romanian
Journal of Economic Forecasting. 23(2), 5-17.
Altig, D., Baker, S., Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., Bunn, P., Chen, S., Davis, S., Leather, J.,
Meyer, B., Mihaylov, E., Mizen, P., Parker, N., Renault, T., Smietanka, P. and G. Thwaites
(2020). Economic uncertainty before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of
Public Economics. 191.
Ataguba, J. (2020). COVID‑19 Pandemic, a War to be Won: Understanding its Economic
Implications for Africa. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 18, 325-328.
Bernitz, U. (2007). What is Scandinavian law? Concept, characteristics, future.
Scandinavian studies in law. 50(1), 13-30.
Brooks, E. and Geyer, R. (2020) The development of EU health policy and the Covid-19
pandemic: trends and implications. Journal of European Integration, 42(8), 1057-1076.
doi: 10.1080/07036337.2020.1853718
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
171
Camisão, I. & P. Vila Maior (2023). The EU and the Pandemic Crisis: From ‘Road to
Nowhere’ to ‘I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For’. A. P. Duarte, S. Redžepagić &
F. Sol Murta (eds) The European Integration Process: Crisis and Resilience in the
Aftermath of the Covid-19 Pandemic. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de
Coimbra/Coimbra University Press.
Chan, Y. T. (2022). The macroeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic: A SIR-DSGE
model approach. China Economic Review. 71.
Dinan, D.; Nugent, N. and Paterson, W. E. (eds) (2017). The European Union in Crisis.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Duarte, A. P. (2015), “Regional Tourism as a Strategic Sector for Portugal: Sun, Sea and
Much More”, Journal of Geographical Institute ‘Jovan Cvijic’ of the Serbian Academy of
Sciences and Arts, 65(2), 229-38.
Duarte, A. P. and F. Sol Murta (2022), Macroeconomic Impacts of the Covid-19 Pandemic
in Some European Union Countries: A Counterfactual Analysis, Gabinete de Estratégia e
Estudos da Economia e do Mar (GEE) Working Paper, Nº 161.
Duarte, A. P., Garcia, I. and F. Sol Murta (2024), “Business Cycles and Tourism Activity:
the case of Portugal”, International Journal of Services, Economics and Management,
15(3), 273-289.
Duarte, António Portugal and Fátima Sol Murta (2024), “O Impacto da Pandemia de
COVID-19 no Processo de Integração Europeia: fragmentação vs. solidariedade”, in: I.
Camisão, D. Lopes and L. Simão (Coords.), 40 anos de Construção Europeia. Imprensa
da Universidade de Coimbra/Coimbra University Press. Forthcoming.
Duarte, A. P., Redžepagić, S. and F. Sol Murta (Coords.) (2023), “The European
Integration Process: Crisis and Resilience in the Aftermath of the Covid-19 Pandemic,
Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra/Coimbra University Press.
Dukić, A., Štaka, M. and D. Drašković (2021), The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on
the Macroeconomic aggregates of the European Union, Economics, 9(2), 91-108.
Eichengreen, B. (2020), “Coronanomics 101: which policy tools will contain the economic
threat of COVID-19?”, World Economic Forum (in collaboration with Project Syndicate),
March 12, 2020.
Fernández, I. M., Martos, L. P. and M. A. Vargas (2023), “COVID-19 Crisis and EU
Response. Can the NextGeneration Fund be the Key to a More Integrated Eurozone?”,
Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra/Coimbra University Press, in: A. P. Duarte, S.
Redžepagić and F. Sol Murta (Coords.), The European Integration Process: Crisis and
Resilience in the Aftermath of the Covid-19 Pandemic, Chapter 1.
Gandra, V. (2020), “Países frugais entre os principais beneficiários do mercado interno”,
ECO, July 18.
Gontariuk, M., Krafft, T., Rehbock, C., Townend, D., Van der Auwermeulen, L. and E.
Pilot (2021), The European Union and Public Health Emergencies: expert opinions on the
management of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and suggestions for future
emergencies, Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 698995.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
172
Grogan, Joelle (2022). Impact of COVID-19 measures on democracy and fundamental
rights. Best practices and lessons learned in the Member States and third countries.
European Parliament Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life
Policies, Directorate-General for Internal Policies. PE 734.010, November.
Musiałkowska, I., & Idczak, P. (2021). How Covid-19 impacted the European integration
processes? The case of EU Cohesion Policy and budget. In E. Mińska-Struzik, & B.
Jankowska (Eds.), Toward the “new normal” after Covid-19 – a post-transition economy
perspective (pp. 30–43). Poznań University of Economics and Business Press. https://doi.
org/10.18559/978-83-8211-061-6/I2
Pedauga, L., Sáez, F. and B. L. Delgado-Márquez (2021), “Macroeconomic lockdown and
SMEs: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain”, Small Business Economics.
Radulescu, C., Ladaru, G., Burlacu, S., Constantin, F., Ioanas, C. and L. Petre (2021),
“Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Romanian Labor Market”, Sustainability,
13(271), 1-23.
Sanfelici, M. (2020), “The Italian Response to the COVID-19 Crisis: Lessons Learned and
Future Direction in Social Development”, The International Journal of Community and
Social Development, 2(2), 191-210.
Sapir, A. (2020), “Why has COVID-19 hit different European Union economies so
differently?”, Brussels: Bruegel, 18.
Sebastião, D. (2023), “The Next Generation EU: A Political and Normative Outlook of a
Debtor Country”, Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra/Coimbra University Press, in: A.
P. Duarte, S. Redžepagić and F. Sol Murta (Coords.), The European Integration Process:
Crisis and Resilience in the Aftermath of the Covid-19 Pandemic, Chapter 8.
Silva, N. B. and A. P. Duarte (2021), “Essential and Non-essential Goods: A Dynamic
Stochastic General Equilibrium Modeling of the Infectious Disease Coronavirus (COVID-
19) Outbreak”, Springer Books, im: J. Caetano, I. Vieira and A. Caleiro (Eds.), New
Challenges for the Eurozone Governance, 171-185.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
173
Appendix
Table A.1. GDP – real growth rate (%)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
EU - 27
2,3
1,9
2,8
2,0
1,9
-5,6
6,4
3,5
0,4
1,1
Euro Area
2,1
1,8
2,6
1,8
1,6
-6,0
6,4
3,6
0,4
0,9
Germany
1,7
2,2
2,8
1,1
1,0
-4,1
3,9
1,8p
-0,9p
-0,5p
Spain
4,1
2,9
2,9
2,4
2,0
-10,9
6,7
6,4
2,5p
3,5p
Italy
0,9
1,2
1,6
0,8
0,4
-8,9
8,9
4,8
1,0
0,7
Poland
4,4
3,0
5,2
6,2
4,6
-2,0
6,9
5,3
0,2
3,0
Portugal
1,6
2,0
3,3
2,9
2,7
-8,2
5,6
7,0
3,1
2,1p
Sweden
4,4
2,1
1,9
1,8
2,6
-1,9
5,2
1,3
-0,2
0,9
Note: p - provisional.
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/nama_10_gdp).
Table A.2. Final consumption expenditure – real growth rate (%)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
EU - 27
2,1
2,1
1,9
1,7
1,7
-4,8
4,6
3,9
0,7
1,8
Euro Area
1,9
1,9
1,6
1,3
1,5
-5,3
4,5
4,1
0,8
1,5
Germany
2,7
2,2
2,6
1,3
2,0
-3,5
2,3
4,7p
-0,5p
1,1 p
Spain
2,7
2,3
2,5
1,8
1,4
-8,2
6,1
3,8
2,5 p
3,0 p
Italy
1,4
0,9
1,0
0,4
-0,1
-8,0
4,9
4,1
0,7
0,6
Poland
3,6
3,4
5,3
4,5
4,0
-1,3
5,9
4,0
0,9
4,4
Portugal
1,5
2,0
1,4
2,1
3,2
-5,2
4,6
4,7
2,3
2,6 p
Sweden
3,5
2,7
1,7
1,5
0,5
-2,5
4,8
2,0
-0,7
0,8
Note: p - provisional.
Source: Eurostat.
Table A.3. Final consumption expenditure of general government -- real growth rate (%)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
EU - 27
1,5
2,0
1,3
1,2
2,0
1,2
4,1
1,1
1,6
2,4
Euro Area
1,4
2,0
1,2
1,0
1,9
1,2
4,3
1,3
1,5
2,2
Germany
2,9
4,0
1,6
1,0
2,9
4,9
3,1
0,6 p
-0,2 p
2,6 p
Spain
1,9
0,9
1,0
2,1
2,2
3,5
3,6
0,8
4,5 p
2,9 p
Italy
-0,1
1,3
0,3
0,0
-0,4
0,3
2,3
0,8
1,1
1,0
Poland
2,4
2,0
2,7
3,5
6,5
4,8
5,0
0,6
4,5
8,7
Portugal
0,7
1,0
0,1
0,5
2,1
0,4
3,8
1,7
1,8
1,5 p
Sweden
2,2
3,7
0,2
0,7
0,0
-1,6
3,4
0,7
1,0
1,0
Note: p - provisional.
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/nama_10_gdp).
Table A.4. Gross capital formation – real growth rate (%)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
EU - 27
4,9
2,9
5,2
4,5
4,8
-6,4
8,3
3,9
-3,4
-2,2
Euro Area
4,6
3,3
5,1
4,1
5,2
-6,9
7,4
3,5
-2,2
-2,5
Germany
-1,5
3,6
7,6
4,2
-0,4
-2,5
6,4
-1,8 p
-1,9 p
-3,0 p
Spain
11,0
1,0
5,4
8,3
2,6
-11,9
10,5
5,4
-1,4 p
4,7 p
Italy
1,7
5,1
4,3
3,8
-0,9
-9,9
28,2
10,8
-0,7
0,3
Poland
5,5
-1,4
5,8
14,7
1,7
-8,1
19,4
7,7
-19,6
4,7
Portugal
5,9
2,9
11,4
8,0
3,5
-4,9
10,5
4,9
1,9
3,8 p
Sweden
8,5
4,6
4,2
2,2
-0,3
-1,4
8,3
4,9
-5,3
1,5
Note: p - provisional.
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/nama_10_gdp).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
174
Table A.5. Exports of goods and services --- real growth rate (%)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
EU - 27
6,6
3,6
5,7
3,6
3,5
-8,2
11,3
7,3
-0,2
0,9
Euro Area
6,7
3,1
5,5
3,4
3,3
-8,7
11,5
7,3
-1,2
0,6
Germany
4,9
2,0
3,9
2,6
2,1
-9,5
10,2
3,9 p
-1,4 p
-2,1 p
Spain
4,4
5,4
5,6
1,7
2,3
-20,1
13,4
14,2
2,2 p
3,2 p
Italy
4,0
2,3
5,4
2,1
1,2
-13,7
14,1
9,9
-0,2
0,0
Poland
6,6
9,0
9,1
6,8
5,3
-1,1
12,3
7,4
3,7
2,0
Portugal
6,3
4,7
8,4
4,3
4,0
-18,3
12,0
17,2
4,3
3,1 p
Sweden
5,1
3,1
3,3
4,4
7,0
-5,4
11,6
6,1
2,6
2,4
Note: p - provisional.
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/nama_10_gdp).
Table A.6. Unemployment rate (% of population in the labour force)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
EU - 27
10,2
9,3
8,3
7,4
6,8
7,2
7,1
6,2
6,1
5,9
Euro Area
11,0
10,1
9,1
8,2
7,6
7,9
7,7
6,7
6,6
6,4
Germany
4,4
3,9
3,5
3,2
2,9
3,6
3,6
3,1
3,1
3,4
Spain
22,1
19,6
17,2
15,3
14,1
15,5
14,9
13,0
12,2
11,4
Italy
12,0
11,7
11,3
10,6
9,9
9,3
9,5
8,1
7,7
6,5
Poland
7,7
6,3
5,0
3,9
3,3
3,2
3,4
2,9
2,8
2,9
Portugal
13,0
11,5
9,2
7,2
6,6
7,1
6,7
6,2
6,5
6,5
Sweden
7,5
7,1
6,8
6,5
6,9
8,5
8,9
7,5
7,7
8,4
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/une_rt_a).
Table A.7. Nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments - growth rate (%)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
EU - 27
4,22
4,01
5,14
3,39
2,28
-
50,54
28,94
50,24
6,84
2,67
Euro Area
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
7,09
2,61
Germany
3,14
2,86
3,17
4,58
4,15
-
40,32
2,05
50,47
7,75
1,90
Spain
4,52
7,75
3,57
-0,90
0,62
-
69,21
79,42
73,98
7,39
4,16
Italy
4,00
2,57
4,38
1,95
1,84
-
52,27
38,73
42,48
8,53
4,25
Poland
6,99
11,45
5,65
5,94
5,04
-
44,96
22,31
43,15
3,16
5,23
Portugal
8,08
11,10
9,12
3,29
4,28
-
61,13
40,74
81,29
10,32
3,75
Sweden
6,37
2,92
2,53
3,70
3,81
-
36,99
25,73
25,74
1,54
0,34
Note: nd – not available.
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/tour_occ_ninat).
Table A.8. Net occupancy rate of bed-places and bedrooms in hotels and similar
accommodation (%)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
EU - 27
55,72
57,22
58,93
59,86
60,11
37,26
42,69
54,78
59,22
59,92
Euro Area
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
55,76
60,61
61,41
Germany
60,23
61,80
62,07
62,72
63,04
37,80
38,78
54,89
60,17
60,52
Spain
61,97
65,72
67,07
66,77
67,22
38,00
48,86
58,52
68,17
69,52
Italy
44,90
46,20
48,80
51,00
51,80
31,40
40,10
51,00
54,50
58,30
Poland
45,30
47,60
48,90
49,80
50,70
30,10
36,30
49,50
50,70
50,80
Portugal
48,20
53,24
56,98
56,98
58,98
30,11
38,33
57,76
61,60
62,46
Sweden
55,27
58,00
58,27
58,00
58,00
34,00
41,81
55,71
57,47
57,08
Note: nd – not available.
Source: Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/tin00180).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 17, Nº. 1
May 2026, pp. 154-175
The European Integration Process in Times if Covid-19 Pandemic:
Fragmentation vs. Solidarity
António Portugal Duarte, Fátima Teresa Castelo da Assunção Sol Murta, Licínia Simão
175
Table A.9. Air Passenger Transport Growth Rate, by Reporting Country (%)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
EU - 27
4,93
6,34
7,70
6,12
3,90
-
73,26
35,07
118,48
19,13
8,16
Euro Area
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
Germany
4,02
3,48
5,83
4,72
1,95
-
74,51
27,34
111,02
19,30
7,71
Spain
5,62
11,00
8,23
5,14
3,47
-
74,68
59,00
119,51
0,00
28,76
Italy
5,37
5,34
7,31
6,27
4,77
-
74,85
47,78
121,78
22,98
11,98
Poland
12,42
11,62
16,79
16,14
7,25
-
70,55
36,66
108,26
27,50
13,71
Portugal
10,58
13,68
16,47
7,02
7,82
-
69,92
35,04
128,95
19,43
4,73
Note: nd – not available.
Source: Authors’ own work using data from Eurostat (DOI: 10.2908/avia_paoc).
