Any changes? The future agenda of Sweden's security policy. OSW Commentary No. 126, 28.01.2014

Sweden’s annual security and defence conference, which this year focused on the future of the country’s security policy, was held in Sälen on 12-14 January. It was attended by almost all the leaders of Sweden’s ruling and opposition parties. The discussions have revealed whether and how the mindset of the Swedish elite has changed following the heated debates on defence issues in 2013. The opposition parties (Social Democrats, the Green Party, and the Left Party), which are likely to form a coalition government after the election to the Swedish parliament in September 2014, were given the opportunity to present their own priorities. The discussions have brought to the surface conflicting perceptions within the political elite concerning the threats and challenges to Swedish security, and divergent positions on the future direction of the country’s security and defence policy. It is highly likely that, due to a coalition compromise, the current course of Sweden’s security policy (namely, a policy of non-alignment along with close co-operation with NATO) will be maintained following the parliamentary election, albeit with new “leftist” influences (a greater involvement in the United Nations). Big changes that could lead to a significant strengthening of Sweden’s defence capabilities, or a decision on NATO membership, are not likely. Paradoxically, polls suggest that in the long run a more radical change in Stockholm’s security policy may be shaped by a gradual, bottom-up evolution of public opinion on the issue.

Implementing Basel III in Europe: disgnosis and avenues for improvement. CEPS Policy Brief No. 275, 27 June 2012

This Policy Brief provides a preliminary diagnosis of the proposed regulatory reforms contained in the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD IV-CRR), which translate into EU law the Basel III standards adopted by the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, and suggests avenues for improvement. The main criticism is that the proposal is not ambitious enough. In some crucial areas, such as the leverage ratio and the long-term liquidity requirements adopted under the Basel III framework, the CRD IV-CRR proposal stops short of making a strict commitment to introduce binding requirements and instead is contented with weaker (and possibly divergent) disclosure requirements.

Poland and Greece - two contrasting EU enlargement experiences. ZEI Discussion Paper C213, 2012

The aim of this contribution is a comparative analysis of the challenges Poland and Greece (and more broadly – CEE-10 and GIPS countries) had to face in the past as latecomers to the European Union and are facing now, in the aftermath of the world financial and economic crisis of 2008-09. The main underlying message conveyed in this text is two-fold. Firstly, the author is going to argue that the breadth and complexity of the challenges Poland and other CEE-10 countries had to face while entering the road of systemic transformation was by far greater compared to past and in particular – current problems of Greece (and the remaining GIPS countries) in the aftermath of the global financial and economic crisis of 2008-09. Secondly, a resilience of Poland and other CEE-10 economies, relative to Greece and other GIPS, to the recent crisis was due to a comparatively higher level of institutional development of the former group at the time of their EU accession and at present. The ensuing discussion is organized as follows. Section 2 below provides comparative background information on the two reference groups. In Section 3 we discuss the most salient features of the design of the command economy and its legacy, as a key determinant of the initial conditions of systemic transformation. Next, in Section 4 we overview the basic indicators of growth performance and institutional reforms in CEE-10 countries between 1990 and 2011. Section 5 offers a picture of economic growth and real economic convergence in Greece and the remaining GIPS countries. In Section 6 we embark on comparative analysis of the institutional quality of Greece and Poland against a broader background of GIPS, CEE-10 and the remaining EU member countries. Section 7 concludes with a summary of major findings.