Journal Articles (peer-reviewed)
Seidl, T., & Wuttke, T. (2026). Picking Sectors: IPCEIs and Europe’s Emerging State Capacity for Strategic Identification. Politics and Governance, 14.
Abstract
A central feature of industrial policy today is governments’ growing willingness to direct economic activity into strategic sectors. However, identifying which sectors or technologies are strategic is not trivial, and little is known about how this is actually done. In this article, we introduce and conceptualize the notion of state capacity for strategic identification (SCSI), comprising internal capacity (to gather and validate information) and external capacity (to build consensus and coordinate around strategic priorities). We examine how SCSI has developed in the EU based on the need to identify strategic sectors for Important Projects of Common European Interest, one of the flagship initiatives of the EU’s new industrial policy. We analyze the evolution of SCSI from ad‐hoc processes (2014) through the Strategic Forum (2018–2020) to the Joint European Forum (2023–present). Based on primary documents and original interviews, we document a process of policy learning where policy failures led to the gradual institutionalization of SCSI. We find that the Joint European Forum represents substantial external SCSI through institutionalized coordination and maintaining industry connections while avoiding capture, whereas internal SCSI remains more limited due to a lack of systematic integration of technical expertise.
Bulfone, F., Di Carlo, D., & Seidl, T. (2026). Regulatory Means for Interventionist Ends: GBER and the Transformation of the EU State Aid Regime. Governance, 39(1), e70084.
- Op-ed in La Repubblica
- Mentioned in Politico Pro (December 2025)
Abstract
Despite its new‐found penchant for market interventionism, the European Union (EU) is often portrayed as lacking the fiscal and administrative capacity to conduct industrial policy. The EU can regulate markets, the conventional wisdom goes, but not steer them in specific directions. In this article, we challenge the notion that regulation and industrial policy are inherently antithetical, arguing instead that the Commission uses its regulatory authority over state aid to indirectly steer member states’ industrial policies. We theorize and empirically investigate this rules‐as‐tools approach to industrial policy through an in‐depth, multi‐method case study on the transformation of the EU’s state aid regime, with a focus on the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER). Combining original interviews, topic modeling, document analysis, and descriptive statistics, we demonstrate that the Commission has long used state aid regulation not only to restrict but also redirect state aid. Increasingly, it employs these rules to encourage selective interventions in the economy—particularly those supporting the twin transitions of digitalization and decarbonization.
Seidl, T., & Lopes-Valença, H. (2025). Waking a Dormant Legal Resource: Institutional Activation and the Origins of Important Projects of Common European Interest. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies.
Abstract
Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEIs) have become a central tool of the European Union’s (EU) new industrial policy. IPCEIs derive their peculiar name from an exemption to the general prohibition on state aid that has existed since the Treaty of Rome but has only led to the creation of a stand-alone policy instrument in 2014. In this paper, we introduce the concept of institutional activation to shed light on both the origins and evolution of this Treaty article. We reconstruct how the article reflected a compromise between different coalitions during the Treaty negotiations; how it remained largely dormant in the absence of a sustained coalitional push to activate it; and how it was finally activated by a coalition of institutional entrepreneurs’ intent on using the article’s untapped potential for new forms of industrial policy.
Schmitz, L., Seidl, T., & Wuttke, T. (2025). The costs of conditionality. IPCEIs and the constrained politics of EU industrial policy. Competition & Change, 1–25.
- Policy brief in LUHNIP
Abstract
With the global return of industrial policy, most literature examines why states increasingly resort to market activism. Much less is known about how industrial policy works “on the ground.” In this paper, we address this how-question through an in-depth case study of the poster child of the EU’s new industrial policy: the Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI). We argue that while the literature has rightly pointed out that attaching conditionalities to public money is key to steering markets effectively and equitably, conditionalities also come with costs. Moreover, they are not the reflection of policy design principles but reflect political, institutional, and ideational constraints that shape which and how conditionalities are applied. We show how the constrained politics of EU industrial policy have shaped both the creation and application of the conditionalities that govern IPCEIs, and how this has led to costs in the form of perverse outcomes, adverse selection, and workarounds.
Nachtwey, O., & Seidl, T. (2024). The Solutionist Ethic and the Spirit of Digital Capitalism. Theory, Culture & Society, 41(2), 91–112.
- Blog post for HIIG
- Op-ed in Oxi Magazin
Abstract
Digital technologies are rapidly transforming economies and societies. Scholars have approached this rise of digital capitalism from various angles. However, relatively little attention has been paid to digital capitalism’s cultural underpinnings and the beliefs of those who develop most digital technologies. In this paper, we argue that a solutionist order of worth – in which value derives from solving social problems through technology – has become central to an emerging spirit of digital capitalism. We use supervised learning to trace the relative importance of different orders of worth in three novel text corpora. We find that solutionism is indeed central to the normative beliefs of digital elites and the broader digital milieu, but not to capitalist discourse at large. We illustrate the importance of these findings by discussing how the spirit of digital capitalism motivates, legitimates, and orients the actions of digital capitalists.
Seidl, T., & Schmitz, L. (2024). Moving on to not fall behind? Technological sovereignty and the ‘geo-dirigiste’ turn in EU industrial policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(8), 2147–2174.
- Winner of the JEPP Best Paper Prize 2024 (Jury Statement)
Abstract
The fear of falling behind has been a driving force of European integration. Historically, Europe’s response to the looming angst of declining competitiveness has been more market-creation, not market-direction. Recently, however, Europe has – in the name of safeguarding Europe’s technological sovereignty – taken on a much more active role in directing economic activity towards sectors and technologies deemed geopolitically or geoeconomically important. In this paper, we attempt to explain this ‘geodirigiste’ turn. We reconstruct the evolution of EU industrial policy through the lens of Europe’s fear of falling behind, drawing not only on primary (including archival) and secondary sources, but also on original interviews and deep transfer learning applied to an original dataset of 66.548 documents. Focusing on Europe’s changing technological and geopolitical context, its coalitional underpinnings, and the role of ideational politics, we document and explain the historic shift away from market-creation and towards supranational market-direction in EU industrial policy.
Seidl, T. (2023). Commodification and Disruption: Theorizing Digital Capitalism. Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society, 3(1), 1–35.
Abstract
There is little debate that digital technologies are transforming contemporary economies and societies. However, scholars have only recently begun to systematically think about how digitalization – the process whereby more and more of what we say, think, and do becomes mediated by digital technologies – is both driven by and transformative of capitalism. This paper argues that three digital revolutions – the platform, (big) data, and artificial intelligence revolutions – have given rise to digital capitalism. Under digital capitalism, platform-based, data-driven, and artificial-intelligence-powered business models capture an increasing share of profits, directly or indirectly control an increasing share of economic life, and increasingly serve as role models for both start-ups and established companies. Reviewing and systematizing the social-scientific literature on capitalism and digitalization, the paper offers a conceptual framework that scholars and practitioners can use to better understand and analyze the drivers, dynamics, and challenges of digital capitalism.
Obendiek, A. S., & Seidl, T. (2023). The (False) promise of solutionism: Ideational business power and the construction of epistemic authority in digital security governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(6), 1594–1618.
Abstract
Digital technologies are transforming security governance, bringing new risks and opportunities. The resulting uncertainty creates interpretative contests about what these new challenges are and who can – and should – address them. We argue that private actors use their ideational business power – and specifically solutionist arguments – to influence how public actors perceive digital security problems; whether they view private actors as necessary and/or effective in solving them; and whether they view public and private goals as compatible. In doing so, they influence how public actors navigate competence-control trade-offs. We substantiate this argument in two qualitative case studies on the involvement of Palantir in EU law enforcement and on the prominent role of (foreign) tech companies in the European cloud project Gaia-X. Drawing on and contributing to the literatures on (critical) security governance, competence-control theory, and ideational business power, we shed light on the ideational underpinnings of Europe’s regulatory security state.
Schmitz, L., & Seidl, T. (2023). As Open as Possible, as Autonomous as Necessary: Understanding the Rise of Open Strategic Autonomy in EU Trade Policy. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 61(3), 834–852.
Abstract
For decades, the EU’s trade policy has been centred around open(ing) markets. Why, then, has the EU recently embraced open strategic autonomy as the conceptual cornerstone of its renewed trade policy? In this article, we argue that this move away from neoliberalism has to be understood against the background of a changing global environment. The geopoliticization of trade in particular has changed the Commission’s view about how to best serve European interests (and values) but also provided an opening for neo-mercantilist and socially oriented actors to challenge Europe’s embedded neoliberal compromise. Using document analysis, interviews and discourse network analysis, we show how the Commission used open strategic autonomy as a coalition magnet to mobilize support for its new doctrine of qualified openness. Our paper contributes to understanding the ideational and coalitional politics behind the recent evolution of EU trade policy as well as broader debates around European autonomy and sovereignty.
Seidl, T. (2023). Investing in the knowledge economy: The comparative political economy of public investments in knowledge-based capital. European Journal of Political Research, 62(3), 924–944.
Abstract
Investments in education and retraining, or research and development have become essential in today’s knowledge-intensive economies. While private actors often underprovided such knowledge-based capital due to various market failures, there is also considerable variation in the extent to which governments invest in knowledge-based capital due to cross-sectional and intertemporal trade-offs. I argue that in trying to account for this variation, corporatist institutions are a neglected but crucial factor. By necessitating and facilitating cooperation and compensation, corporatism creates a more collaborative style of policy making and a sense of common ownership of policy problems that helps overcome the trade-offs associated with investments in knowledge-based capital. Using within-between mixed-effects models on a novel time-series-cross-sectional dataset, I find strong support for this argument. Corporatist countries invest a lot more in knowledge-based capital, and corporatism also affects how countries react to deindustrialization. This is an important finding given the key role of long-term policy making in areas like climate change politics, pandemic preparedness or responding to the digital transformation.
Seidl, T. (2022). The politics of platform capitalism: A case study on the regulation of Uber in New York. Regulation & Governance, 16(2), 357–374.
Abstract
Platform companies like Uber not only disrupt existing markets but also contest existing regulatory regimes. This raises the question of how, when, and why such companies are regulated. This article develops, tests, and defends a theoretical framework that explains the politics of regulatory response to the rise of platform capitalism. Using discourse network analysis and a case study on the regulation of Uber in New York, it shows that the success or failure of regulations depends on the ability of actors to mobilize broad coalition; that narratives affect the composition of these coalitions; and that platform companies have both unique political strengths and vulnerabilities. This article makes substantive contributions to our understanding of the politics of platform capitalism, and it makes theoretical contributions to the literature studies on coalitional politics, ideational institutionalism, and business power.
Marenco, M., & Seidl, T. (2021). The discursive construction of digitalization: A comparative analysis of national discourses on the digital future of work. European Political Science Review, 13(3), 391–409.
- Blog post on LSE EUROPP
Abstract
New forms of work intermediation – the gig economy – and the growing use of advanced digital technologies – the new knowledge economy – are changing the nature of work. The digitalization of work, however, is shaped by how countries respond to it. But how countries respond to digitalization, we argue, depends on how digitalization is perceived in the first place. Using text-as-data methods on a novel corpus of translated newspaper and policy documents from eight European countries as well as qualitative evidence from interviews and secondary sources, we show that there are clear country effects in how digitalization is framed and fought over. Drawing on discursive–institutionalist and coalitional approaches, we argue that institutional differences explain these discursive differences by structuring interpretative struggles in favor of the social coalitions that support them. Actors, however, can also challenge these institutions by using the discursive agency to change these underlying support coalitions.
Laurer, M., & Seidl, T. (2020). Regulating the European Data-Driven Economy: A Case Study on the General Data Protection Regulation. Policy & Internet, 13(2), 257–277.
Abstract
In recent years, data have become part and parcel of contemporary capitalism. This has created tensions between the growing demand for personal data and the fundamental right to data protection. Against this background, the EU’s adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016 is puzzling. Why did the EU adopt a regulation that strengthens data protection despite intensive lobbying by powerful business groups and the EU’s supposed neoliberal bias? We make two arguments to explain this outcome. First, we use process tracing to show how issue‐specific institutions played a crucial role during the agenda‐setting stage (1990s–2009) and policy formulation stage (2009–2012). They triggered and structured the drafting process by strengthening the position of data protection advocates within the European Commission. Second, we use discourse network analysis to show that the Snowden revelations of 2013 fundamentally changed the discursive and coalitional dynamics during the decision‐making stage (2012–2016). The salience shock it produced “saved” the GDPR from being watered down, by incentivizing policymakers to distance themselves from business interests and by exposing the geo‐economic dimension of data protection. This article thus offers a comprehensive explanation of the GDPR, while contributing to the literature on the political economy of data protection.
Roos, U., & Seidl, T. (2015). Im »Südwesten« nichts Neues? Eine Analyse der deutschen Namibiapolitik als Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion der außenpolitischen Identität des deutschen Nationalstaates. Zeitschrift für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, 4(2), 182–225.
- Op-ed in The Namibian
Abstract
Der Beitrag widmet sich der Frage, welche grundlegenden Handlungsregeln die deutsche Namibiapolitik anleiten und welche Rückschlüsse sich daraus für die Diskussion um das Verhältnis von Interessen und Werten in der deutschen Außenpolitik ziehen lassen. Vor dem Hintergrund der für deutsche Außenpolitik einzigartigen Gegenwärtigkeit der kolonialen Vergangenheit interessieren wir uns dafür, was sich aus der Art und Weise des Umgangs der Bundesregierung mit dieser Vergangenheit über die gegenwärtige Beschaffenheit der (außen-)politischen Kultur des deutschen Nationalstaates lernen lässt. Dabei greifen wir auf Methoden der rekonstruktiven Weltpolitikforschung in Anlehnung an die Grounded Theory in der Lesart von Anselm Strauss zurück und gelangen zu der These, dass die deutsche Namibiapolitik nicht als Ausdruck einer zivilmächtigen Orientierung verständlich gemacht werden kann. Vielmehr bestätigt diese, dass die grundlegende Eigenschaft deutscher Außenpolitik in der kontinuierlichen Priorität deutscher Interessen besteht, wenngleich diese Interessen durchaus mehrdimensional definiert und flexibel verfolgt werden.
Special Issues
Bora, S. I., Bulfone, F., & Seidl, T. (2026). Doing Industrial Policy in a Geo-Tech World. Politics and Governance. Forthcoming.
Falkner, G., Heidebrecht, S., Obendiek, A., & Seidl, T. (2024). Digital sovereignty—Rhetoric and reality. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(8), 2099–2120.
- Op-eds in Makronom and Der Standard
Abstract
In recent years, the language of digital sovereignty has become ubiquitous in Europe. However, we still lack systematic knowledge if and to what extent the discourse on digital sovereignty is accompanied by actual policy change in different areas of EU policymaking. Drawing on a range of both qualitative and quantitative methods, the various contributions to this special issue examine discursive and policy change in nine major areas of EU digital policymaking. While they find policy change towards more control of the digital across all policy areas examined, this shift is only sometimes accompanied by discursive change towards digital sovereignty. This, we argue, is the result of ideational trade-offs actors face when using the language of digital sovereignty in different venues, policy areas, or countries. Considering current geo-political and geo-economic challenges, this special issue sheds light on recent transformations of EU digital policymaking and its discursive politics in the digital age.
Working Papers & Work in Progress
Seidl, T., & Kosti, N. (2025). Polanyi and List Meet in Brussels. Digital Sovereignty and EU Digital Policymaking. Unpublished Manuscript.
Bremer, B., Bürgisser, R., Bulfone, F., & Seidl, T. (2025). How do People Reason about Industrial Policy? A Survey-Experimental Approach. Unpublished Manuscript.
Bulfone, F., Di Carlo, D., & Seidl, T. (2025). Regulatory Statecraft. Unpublished Manuscript.
Book Chapters
Nachtwey, O., Truffer, J., & Seidl, T. (2023). Der solutionistische Geist des digitalen Kapitalismus. In T. Carstensen, S. Schaupp, & S. Sevignani (Eds.), Theorien des digitalen Kapitalismus (pp. 458–475). Suhrkamp.
Nachtwey, O., & Seidl, T. (2020). Ideologie und der Geist des digitalen Kapitalismus. In W. Nienhüser & W. Matiaske (Eds.), Ökonomie und Ideologie (pp. 235–265). Metropolis.
Seidl, T. (2017). Kompatibilität statt Reduktion: Zur Idee einer Interdisziplinären Anthropologie als soziologischem Selbst- und Fremdver(un)sicherungsraum. In G. Wagner (Ed.), Die Provokation der Reduktion (pp. 201–232). Harrassowitz.
Laurer, M., & Seidl, T. (2017). Eine Stabilitäts- und Wettbewerbsunion der Regierungen: Zur Rekonstruktion grundlegender Handlungsregeln deutscher Eurokrisenpolitik. In U. Roos (Ed.), Deutsche Außenpolitik (pp. 13–47). Springer VS.
Book Reviews
Seidl, T. (2024). Charting the Contours of the Geo-Tech World. Geopolitics, 29(5), 2033–2045.
Seidl, T. (2022). Review of Lehdonvirta, Cloud Empires. Regulation & Governance, 16(4), 1424–1425.
Seidl, T. (2020). Review of Appadurai & Alexander, Failure. Economic Sociology Newsletter.
Other Academic Publications
Schmitz, L., & Seidl, T. (2022). As Open as Possible, as Autonomous as Necessary: Understanding the Rise of Open Strategic Autonomy in EU Trade Policy. RSCAS Working Paper 2022/68.
Nachtwey, O., & Seidl, T. (2017). Die Ethik der Solution und der Geist des digitalen Kapitalismus. IfS Working Paper 11.
Seidl, T. (2021). Ideas, Politics, and Technological Change: Essays on the Comparative Political Economy of Digital Capitalism. PhD Dissertation, European University Institute.
Laurer, M., & Seidl, T. (2014). Das doppelte Ziel der deutschen Eurokrisenpolitik. Welttrends, 22(99), 120–126.