De Angelis, Gabriele2018-01-232022-03-272017-07-032374-5118PURE: 2357865PURE UUID: ea085c96-a28d-46d6-9626-5cdd1d385ed0Scopus: 84990937868ORCID: /0000-0002-6999-9532/work/55386404http://hdl.handle.net/10362/28874UID/FIL/00183/2013The euro and sovereign debt crisis is both a conflict of political and economic interests and a conflict of interpretations. Two narratives struggle for hegemony in the European ideological imaginary. Each calls for a different mode of crisis management, and each represents a different vision of the single currency, European economic and monetary policy, and European integration as a whole. Each presents different theses on the origins and causes of the crisis, as well as its solution. As important as it is to know which narrative provides a correct interpretation of the crisis in macroeconomic and monetary terms, both remain insufficient when it comes to solving the political and ethical conundrum facing Eurozone governance and the management of the sovereign debt crisis. In fact, both paradigms mirror the economic and political interests and legitimate ethical expectations from the standpoint of which their proponents approach European integration. To understand these expectations, it is therefore necessary to enquire into the conditions of fairness that might allow for legitimate crisis management. The paper attempts to do so while also presenting a model of democratic governance for the EMU.191500342engEconomic and Monetary UnionPolitical legitimacyEuropean governanceDemocratic accountabilityEuro and sovereign debt crisisjournal article10.1080/23745118.2016.1229388