EuroMemo Group Conference 2026
10–12 September 2026 | Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom

The first day of the EuroMemo Group Conference brought together critical economists, political economists, sociologists, and researchers of corporate power to examine Europe’s position in a fragmented global order. Across two panels, speakers explored the transformation of the international economic system, the relationship between financialization and militarization, the growing influence of corporate actors, and the need to develop socio-economic alternatives centred on social welfare, democratic accountability, and human needs. The discussions were introduced and chaired by Anne Eydoux of the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers in Paris. Her introductory remarks situated the conference within the broader challenges posed by geopolitical fragmentation, rearmament, and the search for alternative economic and political strategies.

Panel I: Europe’s Geoeconomic Position and the Crisis of the Washington Consensus

Gary Dymski, Professor of Applied Economics at the University of Leeds, opened the substantive discussion with his presentation, “The Geopolitical State of Europe: From Washington Consensus to Geoeconomic Triangle of Power?” His contribution examined the transformation of the global economic order and the consequences of the United States’ changing approach to multilateralism. Dymski argued that the United States has increasingly abandoned responsibility for completing and consolidating the World Trade Organization as a genuinely fair and open multilateral trading system. Instead, particularly since the emergence of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992, US trade policy has increasingly relied on bilateral and trilateral arrangements designed to secure national economic advantages. In this context, Wall Street has benefited from persistent current-account deficits, while the US economy has continued to sustain patterns of accumulation based on living beyond its means. A central argument was that the United States itself has repeatedly violated the principles associated with the Washington Consensus. Rather than representing a consistent framework of market discipline and economic governance, the system has been applied selectively and strategically. Dymski’s analysis thus pointed towards a fragmented form of accumulation and a changing distribution of global economic power. The question of whether Europe is moving towards a new geoeconomic triangle of power was raised against this background of declining multilateral coherence and intensifying geopolitical competition.

Dany Lang, Associate Professor at Sorbonne Paris, followed with the presentation “What Counts is Everything but Wages and Climate.” His contribution focused on European economic governance, fiscal priorities, and the growing influence of security considerations on economic policy. Lang highlighted the availability of European budgetary resources for defence purposes and discussed the European Semester’s Spring Package of 3 June 2026, particularly the Commission’s proposal to extend the existing flexibility framework to measures related to energy security. Against the backdrop of the energy crisis and the geopolitical consequences of the war in Iran, energy security has increasingly become a central issue in European economic policy. At the same time, Lang emphasized France’s commitment to significant austerity. His contribution raised questions about the priorities embedded in contemporary European economic governance: while defence and security expenditures can receive increasing political attention and fiscal flexibility, wages, climate protection, and social needs risk being treated as secondary concerns. The title of his presentation captured this tension between the stated priorities of economic policy and the material conditions of people’s lives.

The first panel concluded with Susan Murphy, Associate Professor in Development Practice and Fellow of Trinity College Dublin. Her contribution emphasized the importance of care, community, and connections as foundations for an alternative approach to socio-economic development. Murphy connected the crises discussed by the previous speakers to the erosion of institutions and social relationships under the Washington Consensus. She argued that institutions must be revitalized and that politics and policy-making need to be more closely connected to the everyday needs of people. This requires not only better regulations, but also practices that bring political decision-making closer to communities and social realities. Her intervention shifted the discussion from the diagnosis of systemic crisis towards the question of how institutions can be reconstructed. By placing care, community, and connections at the centre, Murphy proposed a perspective in which economic and political alternatives are evaluated not merely through growth or competitiveness, but through their capacity to support social life and collective well-being.

Panel II: Corporate Power, Financialization, Militarization, and Subimperialism

The second panel was chaired by Claudio Cozza and focused more directly on the relationship between economic power, corporate influence, militarization, and global political structures.

Cecilia Rikap, Associate Professor in Economics at University College London, examined the growing power of large technology corporations. Her analysis centred on what she described as a form of “epistemic totalitarianism”: the capacity of major technology companies not only to shape markets and infrastructures, but also to influence what governments think about artificial intelligence and technology, including what should or should not be regulated. Rikap highlighted the growing concentration of power in energy, infrastructure, cloud computing, data centres, and artificial intelligence. These interconnected sectors form what she characterized as a predatory ecosystem, in which corporate control extends beyond individual products or services to the infrastructures upon which societies and states increasingly depend. Her contribution raised fundamental questions about democratic sovereignty. If corporations possess the capacity to shape the knowledge, technological systems, and policy frameworks through which governments make decisions, then corporate power becomes not merely an economic issue but also a political and epistemic one.

Francesco Saraceno, Deputy Department Director at the Observatoire français des conjonctures économiques (OFCE), addressed the connections between financialization, deregulation, and militarization. His contribution examined how the transformation of economic governance is linked to the growing prominence of security and military priorities. The presentation suggested that militarization should not be understood as an isolated development in defence policy. Rather, it is connected to broader processes of deregulation and financialization that have reshaped the relationship between markets, states, and public resources. The discussion therefore reinforced one of the conference’s central concerns: the need to understand rearmament within the wider political economy of contemporary capitalism.

Patrick Bond, Professor of Sociology at the University of Johannesburg, turned to the global political economy of the BRICS. Drawing on the writings of Rosa Luxemburg, David Harvey, Dani Nabudere, and Ruy Mauro Marini, he examined whether the BRICS should be understood as an anti-imperialist alternative to Western dominance or rather as a form of subimperialism. Bond’s analysis challenged simplified interpretations of the BRICS as a unified counterweight to the existing international order. Drawing on Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems perspective, he noted that the incorporation of countries from the former periphery into BRICS structures reflects important shifts in the global distribution of power. Yet these developments also contain internal contradictions and competing interests. The BRICS, in this reading, cannot be treated as a homogeneous bloc. Their members occupy different positions within the global economy, and their political and economic projects may reproduce certain hierarchical and imperial relationships even while challenging Western dominance. Bond’s contribution therefore encouraged a more differentiated analysis of multipolarity, one that recognizes both its emancipatory potential and its internal power asymmetries.

The final speaker, Vicky Cann, researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory, focused on the role of corporate lobbying in European decision-making. She emphasized that the European Union is the world’s second-largest lobbying environment after the United States and that corporate actors exercise enormous influence over policy-making. Cann argued that corporate lobbyists have left their fingerprints on European laws and regulations. Her contribution highlighted the importance of examining the institutional mechanisms through which private interests shape public policy. In this context, the question of democratic accountability becomes inseparable from the question of who has access to decision-makers, who shapes legislative processes, and whose interests are ultimately reflected in European regulation.

Main Key Takeaways

• The Washington Consensus is in crisis, but its consequences remain deeply embedded. The first panel highlighted how the international economic order has become increasingly fragmented, while the principles of the Washington Consensus have been applied selectively and inconsistently.
• Europe’s strategic and economic position must be understood within a changing global power structure.
  The discussion of a possible geoeconomic triangle of power pointed to the need to reassess Europe’s role amid declining multilateral coherence and intensifying geopolitical competition.
• Rearmament and security policy are increasingly shaping economic governance.
  Defence and energy security are receiving growing fiscal and political attention, raising questions about the balance between military priorities, social expenditure, and climate protection.
• Financialization, deregulation, and militarization are interconnected processes.
  Militarization should not be analysed in isolation from the broader political economy of contemporary capitalism.
• Corporate power is also epistemic and infrastructural.
  The influence of large technology corporations extends beyond markets to the infrastructures, knowledge systems, and regulatory frameworks through which governments make decisions.
• Multipolarity does not automatically mean emancipation.
  The BRICS may challenge Western dominance while simultaneously reproducing internal hierarchies and forms of subimperialism. A critical analysis must therefore account for contradictions within emerging power centres.
• Democratic accountability requires confronting corporate lobbying.
  The influence of corporate actors on European legislation demonstrates the importance of examining who shapes policy and whose interests are represented.
• Socio-economic alternatives must begin with human needs.
  Susan Murphy’s emphasis on care, community, and connections offered a constructive counterpoint to the dominant focus on competitiveness, security, and accumulation.
  Institutions need to be revitalized and reconnected with society.
  A recurring theme was the need to bring politics and policy-making closer to the everyday realities and needs of people.
  The central challenge is to connect geopolitical analysis with socio-economic transformation.
  

The first day demonstrated that Europe’s response to fragmentation, rearmament, and geopolitical change cannot be reduced to questions of strategic power alone. It also requires a democratic and socially grounded vision of economic governance.