Name: 巨觀焦點：『買爆歐洲』恐變『歐盟漂白』！ (Macro Matters: 'Buy European' could lead to 'EU-washing')
Uploaded: 2026-02-12T17:13:39.000Z
Duration: 6 min 7 s

Is Buy European the answer to Europe's future in a volatile world?

在動盪的世界裡，「Buy European」是歐洲未來的答案嗎？

This is macro matters and we're talking European competitiveness.

這是 macro matters，我們正在討論 European competitiveness。

That's the theme of an EU summit being held in Belgium this Thursday, where leaders are considering the want to boo policy of favouring European companies in key sectors like tech.

這就是本週四在比利時舉行的 EU summit 的主題，與會領袖們正在考慮在科技等關鍵領域，傾向歐洲企業的「Buy European」政策。

The EU executive is expected to set targets for European content in products like electric vehicles and solar panels.

歐盟執委會預計將為 electric vehicles 和 solar panels 等產品設定 European content 的目標。

Well, Carsten Brusky is global head of macro at ING Research.

好的，Carsten Brusky 是 ING Research 的 global head of macro。

Carsten, some countries like France, embrace this idea.

Carsten，有些國家，像是法國，很擁抱這個想法。

Others that are traditionally more pro free trade, like the Netherlands and the Nordics, are not so keen.

而像荷蘭和 Nordics 這些傳統上更 pro free trade 的國家，就沒那麼熱衷。

Well, that is, as of In Europe, all of them are a little bit right, but

嗯，在歐洲，大家都有點道理，但是

Because this debate shows us that we have two different teams here.

因為這場辯論讓我們看到，這裡有兩支不同的隊伍。

We have one team that is building more open trade, globalization rather in favor of structural reforms.

一支隊伍主張更開放的貿易、全球化，並且傾向於結構性改革。

And we, we have the other team led by France, that is more protectionist, that goes more for government intervention.

而另一支隊伍，以法國為首，則比較保護主義，更傾向於政府幹預。

And when you now look, especially like you mentioned, the Buy European idea, of course I think the idea is good.

而當你現在看，特別是你提到的 Buy European idea，我當然覺得這個想法很好。

Well, clearly it shows to strengthen the European economy.

嗯，顯然這有助於強化 European economy。

But then when put into practice, I think this is where the difficulties would emerge.

但當付諸實踐時，我認為這就是困難出現的地方。

One is clearly how would trading partners react?

一個很明顯的問題是，trading partners 會如何反應？

Retaliation for a region that is highly depending on global trade, that is dangerous.

Retaliation 對於一個高度依賴 global trade 的區域來說，是很危險的。

And the other one is that we could get a kind of EU washing of supply chains, because how can you really show that the entire supply chain or the biggest part of a supply chain is really made in Europe?

另一個問題是，我們可能會出現一種 EU washing of supply chains 的情況，因為你該如何真正證明整個供應鏈或供應鏈的最大部分真的 Made in Europe 呢？

So I think what we clearly want to achieve is that customers, consumers will shift more towards European goods.

所以我想我們很清楚想要達成的目標是，顧客、消費者會更傾向購買歐洲商品。

But to have a fully again regulated by EU does not make a lot of sense.

但要完全由歐盟來規範，其實沒有太大的意義。

What else needs to happen then for Europe to regain competitiveness against the US and China?

那麼，歐洲要重拾對抗美國和中國的競爭力，還需要做些什麼呢？

I think we need to unleash business, we need to unleash innovation.

我認為我們需要釋放企業的活力，我們需要釋放創新。

Well, one would clearly be reduce bureaucracy, reduce regulation and please don't come up with additional regulation to reduce regulation, just simply get rid of regulation.

嗯，一個很明顯的方法就是減少官僚主義、減少法規，拜託，不要再提出額外的法規來減少法規，而是直接廢除法規。

that is a more difficult one, really get a fully functioning single market.

而且是比較困難的部分，是真正建立一個功能完善的單一市場。

And to get a fully functioning single market, European leaders would have to tackle issues like tax harmonization, harmonization of pensions, of Social Security systems.

而要建立一個功能完善的單一市場，歐洲領導人必須處理像是稅制統一、終身俸統一、社會安全體系統一等問題。

So everything that enables actually full labor mobility, that enables full mobility of corporates.

所以，所有能真正促進勞動力充分流動、促進企業充分流動的事項。

Because yes, in terms of the number of citizens, in terms of the size of gdp, Europe is equal to the us.

因為是的，就公民人數、國內生產總值的規模而言，歐洲與美國不相上下。

But when you look at the details, there are so many intra European hurdles that still have to be reduced or actually get away with them in order to make the EU really competitive vis a vis the US and China.

但當你深入瞭解細節時，歐洲內部仍有許多障礙需要克服，才能讓歐盟真正與美國和中國競爭。

And final point, Elenda, sorry for this very long answer is Europe needs more investment.

最後一點，Elenda，抱歉回答這麼長，歐洲需要更多投資。

What about unified European capital markets?

I think the latter part of your question is the ever occurring European problem, namely are these proposals actually feasible?

我認為你問題的後半段是歐洲一直以來遇到的問題，也就是這些提議是否真的可行？

And yes, in an ideal world, in a theoretical world, a fully functioning capital market would make sense would clearly also boost not only trust into the European market, hence probably also increasing foreign investments into the European market would also allow then Europeans to invest more in the European capital market and not in the US European market.

是的，在理想世界、理論世界裡，一個功能完善的資本市場是有意義的，不僅能增加對歐洲市場的信任，進而可能增加對歐洲市場的外國投資，也能讓歐洲人更多地投資於歐洲資本市場，而不是美國歐洲市場。

When you look at in practice, we've still seen that European capitals tend to shield their national champions tend to shield their national markets and so therefore this will be a struggling in an ideal world, yes, a fully fledged capital markets union would also clearly boost the European economy.

當你實際觀察時，我們仍然看到歐洲各國傾向保護他們的國家冠軍、保護他們的國家市場，是以這將是一場掙扎，在理想世界裡，是的，一個成熟的資本市場聯盟也將明顯提振歐洲經濟。

The way around might be an idea to come up with something like a European sovereign wealth so a pan European investment vehicle which allows European citizens to actually invest.

另一種方法可能是提出一個類似歐洲主權財富基金的想法，一個泛歐洲的投資工具，讓歐洲公民能夠實際投資。

The former ECB chief Mario Draghi said last week that Europe risked becoming subordinated, divided and deindustrialized all at once as the world changes.

前歐洲央行總裁 Mario Draghi 上週表示，隨著世界變遷，歐洲可能面臨被邊緣化、分裂和去工業化的風險。

And I would never dare argue with Mario Draghi in all honesty because his analysis is spot on.

說實話，我從來不敢質疑 Mario Draghi，因為他的分析非常精準。

The the problem currently is that we are gradually sliding into this future.

目前的問題是，我們正逐漸滑向這個未來。

It is something that is not so tangible from day to day.

這不是每天都能明顯感受到的事情。

But when you look at a longer time horizon, you compare the situation from a few years ago with maybe what would happen if Europe does not react over the next five years.

但如果你拉長來看，比較幾年前的情況，以及如果歐洲未來五年沒有做出反應可能會發生的事。

It indeed means Europe further having lost international competitiveness, having lost international market shares.

這確實意味著歐洲將進一步失去國際競爭力，失去國際市佔率。

And the point is, if Europe is unable to really grow and to be competitive, we won't have highly paid jobs in Europe anymore.

重點是，如果歐洲無法真正成長且保持競爭力，我們將不再有高薪的工作機會留在歐洲。

We need economic growth in order to finance our social economic model, which consists of a very good pension system, which consists of a very good Social Security and healthcare system.

我們需要經濟成長，才能資助我們的社會經濟模式，包括非常好的終身俸制度、非常好的社會安全和醫療保健系統。

We need well paid jobs in order to fund it.

我們需要高薪的工作來支持它。

以上是ING Research的Carsten Brzeski。

You can watch more videos on Reuters.com.

你可以在Reuters.com觀看更多影片。

字幕列表影片播放

巨觀焦點：『買爆歐洲』恐變『歐盟漂白』！ (Macro Matters: 'Buy European' could lead to 'EU-washing')

struggle

boost

practice

embrace