Monetary policy and the over-investment cycle: China as an extreme case. CEPS Commentary, 27 August 2015

Against the background of the severe turbulence that is hitting global stock markets, Daniel Gros examines the looming slowdown in the Chinese economy in this CEPS Commentary, which he attributes to an underlying ‘real’ domestic investment/savings imbalance. Given the magnitude of this imbalance, Gros thinks it is unlikely to be solved by monetary policy and that the best that can be hoped for is that the central banks will manage to ‘paper over’ some of the unavoidable symptoms in credit markets.

Don’t Go Protectionist! Trade and Investment Relations between the EU and China. Asia Policy Brief 2012/1, June 2012

The European Parliament has proposed the creation of a body to monitor foreign – in particular Chinese – investment in the EU. The initiative, driven by fears of unfair competition and a hidden political agenda behind Chinese investments, should be rejected. There are better ways to promote openness and transparency in Sino-European economic relations.

The EU-China Bilateral Investment Agreement: Between High Hopes and Real Challenges. Security Policy Brief No. 68, February 2016

In 2012, negotiations over an EU–China bilateral investment agreement were launched to fully tap into the potential of bilateral investments. This policy brief gives an overview of the current negotiation process and argues that the high hopes advanced politically and economically in the agreement must be weighed against the many challenges and obstacles the negotiations face, regarding current events in EU–China relations, in global trade and investment regimes, and the limits of EU competencies. Strategically, the agreement could be important, as it offers the potential to strengthen the EU’s global economic relevance. This brief concludes that there is much to gain if the EU follows a coordinated approach and remains mindful of these (potential) obstacles.

Will the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership be a game-changer? EU Centre Singapore Policy Brief No. 5, April 2013

In February 2013, US President Barrack Obama, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso announced the decision to go for an ambitious and comprehensive trade and investment agreement between the US and the EU. To be called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), this agreement would lead to a new stage in the transatlantic relationship and be a much needed boost to the lacklustre economic recovery so far. Some analysts have even argued that TTIP would be a “game changer” – besides the economic gains, it would serve a bigger strategic purpose of promoting EU-US common objective to set higher standards of trade liberalisation, and thereby level the playing field in China and other key emerging markets. This policy brief examines the reasons behind the current push towards TTIP and the possible contents of such an agreement. It also discusses the possible obstacles to the realisation of TTIP, and at the same time, looks into what a successful conclusion of TTIP would mean for Asia and beyond.

Economic Incentives for Indirect TTIP Spillovers. CEPS Special Report No. 94/October 2014 [TTIP Series No. 2]

A deep, comprehensive and ambitious TTIP should not undermine or otherwise negatively affect the WTO and its signatories. Among other things, this means that trade diversion ought to be minimised and positive spillovers stimulated. The present CEPS Special Report provides some elementary quantification, which helps to understand the economic incentives for third countries to seek regulatory alignment with TTIP results, where relevant, and for which TTIP should be ‘open’. It focuses on ‘indirect’ spillovers and employs a rather aggregate economic approach. We find that, of three groups of countries that are important for trade with the EU and the US, the ‘closest’ neighbours (NAFTA, EEA, Switzerland and Turkey) exhibit powerful incentives to align so as to benefit from positive spillovers. This is less clear for two other groups. Of the (seven) ‘biggest traders’ (in manufactured goods, for which spillovers matter most), China turns out to have the greatest interest in alignment in selected sectors, followed by Israel, Japan and South Korea. Whereas the latter three either have or are negotiating FTAs with the US and the EU, precisely China has none and remains outside TPP as well. In terms of sectors, the chemical sector followed by electronic equipment are by far the most important, with agro-products and fish as a good third (SPS issues). However, in chemicals and electrical equipment, the TTIP negotiations so far, and recent US/EU regulatory cooperation, do not indicate an ambitious approach, which could reduce regulatory barriers to market access drastically.

The Determinants of Investment in Information and Communication Technologies. Bruges European Economic Research (BEER) Papers 16/March 2010

In this paper we investigate the determinants of ICT investment at the macro level for a panel of ten countries over the period 1992-2005. We argue that, since ICT is a General Purpose Technology, its diffusion can be understood only considering the interaction with institutional and structural factors. The empirical results are in line with this view: facilitating factors such as changes in regulation, human capital and the sectoral composition of the economy are relevant determinants for increasing ICT investment.

The Role of Europe in Enhancing Cooperative Security in Asia and the Pacific: A View from Japan. Egmont Security Policy Brief No. 50, October 2013

Asia is a prominent export market for Europe while in the East and South China Seas, tensions continue. Europe has searched for its political role in Asia. This policy brief presents an analysis and argues the role of Europe in enhancing cooperative security in Asia and the Pacific, which would promote stability and peace there.

Going Global, Going West! Chinese Direct Investment in Germany. Asia Policy Brief 2014/03, May 2014

Chinese investors are welcome! Germany’s Federal Minister of Economy, Sigmar Gabriel, made this clear at the opening ceremony of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Berlin in January 2014. His words were not only meant as an invitation to Chinese companies, but also as a piece of advice for Germany’s business community and broader public. Chinese investors are often perceived to be going on a “global shopping spree” with a “political checkbook”, not only in Germany but everywhere in Europe. Some observers even suggest stricter controls for investors from specific countries, such as China. The German government is right to pursue the principle of a free trade and investment regime, while insisting that China’s government should level the playing field for foreign companies, too.