Economic security dilemmas differ from traditional security threats
Published on the occasion of the EPC’s second Brussels Economic Security Forum on 4-5 June 2026.
Economic security differs fundamentally from traditional security threats. An attack or invasion crosses a visible line. Economic security is far murkier. Harmful outcomes can arise without explicit hostile intent. A country subsidising its own industry may seek a strategic advantage, increasing the capacity to coerce others or it might primarily seek domestic growth rather than harming others. Yet the resulting excess capacity, market distortions or strategic dependencies can still create severe vulnerabilities abroad.
Economic security threats are often systemic. Vulnerability is not only about denial of access to critical technologies or inputs. It can stem from price shocks, supply chain concentration, investment dependencies or the gradual erosion of industrial capacity. Economic coercion rarely resembles a sudden military strike. It is more akin to boiling a frog slowly: the cumulative effect only becomes visible once dependence is deeply entrenched.
Often, the threat lies less in actions already taken than in the possibility that economic leverage could one day be weaponised. The rational response is to build contingencies before they are needed. But this creates another dilemma. Protective measures often impose costs on those deploying them. Because their use is non-automatic, deterrence may lack credibility.
Ultimately, economic security creates a governance dilemma: who decides when the line has been crossed and collective action is justified? For Europe, fragmented national responses will be ineffective against systemic vulnerabilities embedded in integrated markets and global value chains. Only common European action can provide the scale, credibility and coordination needed to manage economic security risks effectively.
Fabian Zuleeg is Chief Executive and Chief Economist at the European Policy Centre.
The support the European Policy Centre receives for its ongoing operations, or specifically for its publications, does not constitute an endorsement of their contents, which reflect the views of the author only. Supporters and partners cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
