希臘毫無節制的財政支出、西班牙愛爾蘭的房市泡沫、義大利的巨額國債……這些是歐債危機的「近因」還是「症狀」？在並非最佳貨幣區域的歐元區建立單一貨幣、創立沒有財政聯盟支撐的貨幣聯盟、設計出只問通貨膨脹率不問經濟景氣循環的歐洲中央銀行……這一切是歐債危機的「遠因」還是「症狀」？本文以新自由主義思潮之興起解釋1980年代歐洲整合之再出發、隨之而來的歐洲單一貨幣之建立、歐洲央行以及貨幣聯盟之瑕疵設計、以及今日之歐債危機。一旦正視當時政治精英共享之新自由主義因果關係認知之全面影響，便會發現歐債危機的種子可遠溯至1980年代初。而希臘、西班牙、愛爾蘭等國近年經濟表現，甚至1990年代拍板定案的歐洲貨幣聯盟，皆只是遲早會發生的危機症狀而非原因。新自由主義不只造成歐債危機的發生，亦嚴重侵蝕了所謂的歐洲社會模式之根基。社會福利原本不以市場利潤為前提亦不以市場邏輯為依歸，如今卻依附在市場之下，社會保護資源反被拿來保護強者，弱者卻成了風險承擔者。若以本研究之發現對區域整合理論中之自由派政府間主義、新功能主義、以及社會建構主義之解釋能力進行比較，則強調知識社群共享之觀念想法的社會建構主義最能深入核心地解釋歐洲貨幣聯盟從萌芽到今日深陷危機之歷史發展軌跡；而強調各國利益與談判本錢的自由派政府間主義則僅提供了表淺觀察。

Are the Greek profligacy, the Spanish and Irish housing bubble, and Italy's runaway debt the immediate causes or symptoms of the European debt crisis? Is the construction of the Euro area in a non-optimum currency area, the establishment of the monetary union in the absence of a fiscal union, and the design of the European Central Bank with the sole task of preventing inflation the indirect causes or symptoms of the European debt crisis? This article argues that the root cause of the European debt crisis lies in the spread of neoliberal ideology among political elites and intellectuals that occurred in the 1980s. The shared neoliberal ideas contributed to the re-launch of the European project in the 1980s, the single European currency that followed suit, the flawed-design of the ECB and the monetary union, and hence the crisis the EU is faced with today. Once the far-reaching impact of the neoliberal causal beliefs is put into perspective, it becomes clear that phenomena such as the Greek profligacy, the Spanish and Irish housing bubble, and the flawed-design of the monetary union are symptoms rather than causes of the crisis foreseen by many. The neoliberal ideology has not only caused the crisis but has severely eroded the foundation of the so-called European social model. In the pre-neoliberal era, the welfare state did not subordinate to the logic of market. In the neoliberal era, social resources are easily allocated on protecting the rich and the strong, with risks shouldered by the more disadvantaged in the society. The findings of this article show that among the mainstream integration theories, social constructivism, which stresses the importance of epistemic community and shared ideas, can provide the most in-depth explanation for the trajectory that the EU took leading up to the debt crisis. In contrast, liberal intergovernmentalism, which emphasizes national interests and negotiation power, can provide only superficial observations.