Energy and climate - What is the new European Commission thinking? EPC Commentary, 30 September 2014

A visible change of priorities and re-structuring of portfolios in the new European Commission have raised questions about related policy implications especially for climate and energy policies. On the one hand, it is seen that the new structure with Vice Presidents as team leaders for groups of Commissioners could encourage much needed policy coordination between policy areas, such as climate and energy policies. At the same time there are questions over what this could mean for political priorities, to what extent the Vice Presidents will be able to guide policy-making and how responsibilities will be divided. No matter what the structure of the Commission, it is in the EU’s interest to ensure that its climate and energy policies form a framework for action that helps to reduce global emissions, fight climate change locally and globally, secure energy supplies, promote wider socio-economic interests and increase competitiveness – all at the same time.

Towards a New Industrial Policy for Europe. EPC Issue Paper No. 78, November 2014

An ambitious rhetoric has been adopted both at the European and national level towards industrial policy. Along with rhetoric, sweeping action plans to revive our industrial base and reverse off-shoring trends have been attempted. However, concrete measures undertaken have been inconsistent and weak compared to the magnitude of the challenges faced by European manufacturing as well as the policies implemented by our competitors. At the same time the economic and financial crisis has shed light on the risks of an excessive reliance on the service and financial sector and the necessity to look for new sources of growth. As a response, this Issue Paper, by Claire Dhéret, Senior Policy Analyst and Martina Morosi, Programme Assistant, argues that fostering a more innovative, knowledge-intensive, new technology-oriented and resource-efficient manufacturing industry in Europe is the right way to go. To this end, a new EU strategic vision on industrial policy, based on the operationalisation of European cooperation, is urgently required. The paper presents a toolkit for implementing the vision and a series of policy recommendations.

New Pact for Europe: Towards a New Pact for Europe. Second report, October 2014

As the new EU leadership takes office, Europe faces a complex web of economic, political, social and global challenges which require new responses – above all, the need to restore the public’s faith and trust after the years of crisis which have prompted growing dissatisfaction with the Union, with many people now seeing it as part of the problem rather than part of the solution to those challenges. In 2012, a consortium of 11 European foundations initiated by the King Baudouin Foundation and Bertelsmann Stiftung, and supported by the European Policy Centre, decided to launch a project to promote a Europe-wide debate on the future of EU integration: an ambitious participatory initiative whose ultimate goal is to develop realistic reform proposals to shore up a Union hit by multiple storms in recent years, which have left many people questioning its capacity to respond effectively to those challenges. Two years later, we are proud to be able to present the outcome of this endeavour: the result of a joint reflection process involving the public, politicians, policy-makers, business leaders, trade unionists, EU experts, opinion-formers and other civil society representatives in many EU Member States. Obviously, not all the ideas and proposals generated by this process could be included in this report, but we hope that it faithfully reflects the feedback we received in all the debates. The discussions we have had led to the report that you now hold in your hands, which calls for a New Pact for Europe – between EU Member States and between the EU and its citizens – to enhance the Union’s capacity to deliver effective solutions to the many challenges facing Europe, and to do so in a way that benefits all EU countries and groups within society. This report is designed to feed into the on-going discussions about the EU’s future as the new leadership team takes charge, providing what we hope will be seen as a valuable contribution to the debate on how to introduce ambitious while at the same time workable and realistic reforms to make the EU more effective in responding to the challenges we face. We hope that it will be taken up for discussion by the new European Parliament, the new leadership of the European Commission, European Council and European External Action Service, and also by policy-makers in the Member States. And it does not by any means mark the end of the process. The report will be discussed again with policy-makers and stakeholders in a majority of Member States. Their feedback is important to us and will impact the future progress of the initiative.

Improving decision-making in the EU. CHALLENGE EUROPE Issue 22 - Challenges and new beginnings: Priorities for the EU's new leadership, September 2014.

The multiple crises the European Union (EU) has experienced in recent years have fundamentally altered decision-making and, more broadly, governance in the EU. Pre-crisis systems and processes were not adequate to react to such critical and systemic challenges, but the speed of the crisis meant that new governance mechanisms have been superimposed on existing processes and structures rather than seeing a fundamental reform of decision-making. Consequently, not all changes have been fully successful. Given the institutional changes this year and the ongoing development of the EMU governance framework, now presents a good opportunity to reform EU decision-making.

Foreign policy at the service of modernisation: old wine in a new wineskin. OSW Commentary No. 39, 2010-08-31

Russia’s contacts with the external world over the past year have been characterised by a gradual improvement in its relations with the West, as well as the use of non-confrontational rhetoric, the most far-reaching example of which was the address President Dmitri Medvedev gave to Russian ambassadors this July. In an attempt to harmonise foreign policy with the widely propagated programme for the modernisation of Russia1 President Medvedev presented a vision of the Russian Federation as a responsible global power which is open to co-operation. According to this vision, Russian foreign policy would help to attract foreign investments and technologies. The West was presented as a partner, not a rival. Both this rhetoric and the atmosphere of co-operation in relations with the USA and the EU contrast with the assertive and aggressive Russian policy which was symbolised by and culminated in the Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008. The changes observed in Russian foreign policy are quite limited, and are not constructing a new external strategy. Those changes are rather an attempt to find more efficient ways to implement old strategic goals. The new image of a responsible global power is inconsistent, and Russian policy is still assertive and geopolitically motivated. Although a new rhetoric is really in place, the Russian political elite’s perception of their country’s place and role in the contemporary international order remains unchanged. Moscow’s readiness to become engaged in genuine co-operation with the West has not increased significantly; it is still to a great extent declarative in nature.

Russia in Crisis: Year One. OSW Report, January 2010

Economic conditions which had favoured Russia’s development suddenly changed in mid-2008. The Russian economy was hit, on the one hand, by a drastic slump in oil prices (which fell from nearly US$150 to US$50 between July 2008 and January 2009), and on the other by the outflow of investors (a net of US$130 billion of capital left Russia in the fourth quarter of 2008). Within several months, the financial crisis became an economic crisis affecting the entire economy. The financial reserves accumulated in times of prosperity (more than US$162 billion in the stabilisation funds and nearly US$598 billion in the currency and gold reserve) alleviated the negative impact of the crisis, although this failed to prevent the deep declines in macroeconomic indicators. Russia is one of the states most severely affected by the crisis. In the first half of 2009, its GDP fell by 10.4% compared to the same period in the previous year, while industrial production dropped by nearly 15%, and a decrease in investments of over 18% was reported. The poor economic performance has strongly affected the Russian budget, which reported a deficit for the first time in ten years in 2009. During the first year of the crisis (August 2008 – September 2009), Russia’s financial reserves were seriously reduced as a result of the government’s anti-crisis policy and interventions from the central bank: the reserve fund decreased by nearly 45% to US$76 billion, and the central bank’s reserves shrunk by nearly US$200 billion to US$409 billion. Meanwhile, however, the money in the National Welfare Fund, which had been intended almost entirely to subsidise the Pensions Fund between 2010 and 2015, rose almost three-fold (to US$90 billion). According to government forecasts, the money from the reserve fund is also supposed to be spent fully in 2010. The financial crisis has triggered a dynamic outflow of capital from the Russian market. So-called speculative capital was the first to demonstrate the lack of confidence in the Russian market. In the first half of 2009, the growth rate of long-term investments also decreased noticeably, although no spectacular withdrawal of direct investments from Russia has been observed. The economic crisis has also halted the foreign expansion of Russian private capital, while state-owned capital strengthened its position as an investor. Russia’s raw materials companies continue to be the main category of foreign investors; however, new technologies are gaining prominence as the second main direction of Russian investments.

Moldova in 2015: A decisive year for its future. CEPS Commentary, 8 January 2015

Following Moldova’s Parliamentary elections at the end of November, Erwan Fouéré reflects in this Commentary on the wide array of serious challenges facing the country in the coming year. These include notably long-standing internal rivalries, economic woes and the country’s unfortunate position in the middle of an intense geopolitical struggle between Russia and the EU. Judging from what has been achieved in the past year against all odds, however, he finds that the new government will be able to move forward on a sound basis if it promotes a policy of consensus-building across the country, while involving civil society representatives and the business community, including from Transdniestria.

The EU's migrant strategy: a welcome new impetus. EPC Commentary, 19 May 2015

The publication of the Commission's agenda on migration comes at a difficult time: first and foremost in humanitarian terms on account of the recurrent and intolerable tragedies taking place in the Mediterranean, which demand a rapid response; and secondly, in political terms, if we consider both the economic situation (the crisis) and the political situation (the rise of far-right and anti-European parties) which makes all debate and action in this field rather tricky. In this context, the Juncker Commission faced a sensitive challenge because it needed to act quickly but had only limited room for manoeuvre. While certain guidelines had already been revealed at the European Council meeting on 23 April, the publication of the agenda has provided the Commission with an opportunity to recall and to specify the actions it wishes to undertake in the immediate, medium, and long terms. There are three aspects to the agenda worth highlighting: its innovation, its confirmation, and its long-term vision.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): China’s new multilateralism and the erosion of the West. Security Policy Brief No. 63, April 2015

China will launch a new development bank for Asia later this year, called the AIIB. 58 countries worldwide have already applied to become founding members, including numerous Western nations. This policy brief argues that the AIIB constitutes an important international development, as it reflects a new geopolitical reality and marks a new turn in China’s practice of multilateralism. It also looks critically at the European uncoordinated response to the AIIB, and what it tells about Europe’s shrinking role in the world.

The EU’s Enlargement Strategy 2015: Will the ‘new elements’ make a difference? CEPS Commentary, 26 November 2015

After an unprecedented delay, the European Commission adopted its 2015 Enlargement Package on November 10th, together with the annual reports on each of the candidate and prospective candidate countries. In this Commentary, Erwan Fouéré offers his assessment of what Enlargement Commissioner Johannes Hahn called the “new elements” in the package, including an “overarching strategy for the next 4 years” (coinciding with the remainder of the Commission’s mandate), “much clearer guidance to the countries on what they have to focus on in the year ahead”, as well as on the “longer-term results that are needed to meet EU expectations”.

The Coup One Year on: Thailand's "Ugly German" Constitution. Asia Policy Brief 2015/02, May 2015

A year after becoming a military dictatorship once more, Thailand’s new constitution – the 20th since 1932 – is taking shape. In it, the arch-conservative charter drafters stipulate that future elections will be conducted using a variant of Germany’s mixed-member proportional representation system. Their hope is that the resulting coalition governments will prevent future administrations from turning into populist one-man shows. The drafters may be hoping in vain.