UBER: Innovation or déja vu? CEPS Commentary, 25 February 2015

The emergence of the controversial car service Uber has provoked a wide and heated discussion among economists specialising in the services sector in recent months. This Commentary explores the most salient questions being raised in the debate: Does Uber really offer a new service? And does it represent true innovation? The authors argue that there are some very interesting innovative elements associated with Uber, but those related to the specific industrial relations model might prove to be prejudiced against drivers.

The Circular Economy: Barriers and Opportunities for SMEs. CEPS Working Documents No. 412/September 2015

The ‘circular economy’ is gaining momentum as a concept in both academic and policy circles, and circular business models have been linked to significant economic benefits. This paper identifies barriers and enablers to adopting circular economy business practices, and presents key messages for policy-makers. It draws on input from a literature review, on discussions held in the context of the GreenEcoNet project and on an analysis of two SME circular business models.

The European Pharmaceutical Industry in a Global Economy: what drives EU exports of pharmaceuticals?. Bruges European Economic Research Papers (BEER) 31/2015.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most competitive sectors in the European Union. With its substantial investments in research and development, this industry represents a key asset for the European economy and a major source of growth and employment. However, despite the importance of the pharmaceutical sector for the European Union, few researchers have attempted to assess the determinants of the EU exports of pharmaceuticals. This paper aims at filling the aforementioned gap by examining what drives EU exports of pharmaceuticals. In order to tackle this question, this paper has derived hypotheses from the Gravity Model of Trade and the relevant academic literature on pharmaceuticals. Based on an econometric analysis, the research sheds light on the complex interaction of factors influencing the EU exports of pharmaceuticals. The paper finds that the protection of intellectual property in the receiving countries, their economic size, the importance of their health sector, and the quality of infrastructures constitute major drivers to the EU exports of pharmaceuticals. On the contrary, the research shows that transports costs as well as tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers tend to hinder the EU exports of pharmaceuticals.

Searching for harm or harming search? A look at the European Commission’s antitrust investigation against Google. CEPS Special Report No. 118/September 2015

As the European Commission’s antitrust investigation against Google approaches its final stages, its contours and likely outcome remain obscure and blurred by a plethora of nonantitrust-related arguments. At the same time, the initial focus on search neutrality as an antitrust principle seems to have been abandoned by the European Commission, in favour of a more standard allegation of ‘exclusionary abuse’, likely to generate anticompetitive foreclosure of Google’s rivals. This paper discusses search neutrality as an antitrust principle, and then comments on the current investigation based on publicly available information. The paper provides a critical assessment of the likely tests that will be used for the definition of the relevant product market, the criteria for the finding of dominance, the anticompetitive foreclosure test and the possible remedies that the European Commission might choose. Overall, and regardless of the outcome of the Google case, the paper argues that the current treatment of exclusionary abuses in Internet markets is in urgent need of a number of important clarifications, and has been in this condition for more than a decade. The hope is that the European Commission will resist the temptation to imbue the antitrust case with an emphasis and meaning that have nothing to do with antitrust (from industrial policy motives to privacy, copyright or media law arguments) and that, on the contrary, the Commission will devote its efforts to sharpening its understanding of dynamic competition in cyberspace, and the tools that should be applied in the analysis of these peculiar, fast-changing and often elusive settings.

Is Horizon 2020 really more SME-friendly? A look at the figures. CEPS Commentary, 17 February 2016

Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) play a key role in the EU economy.[1] According to the latest “SME performance review” published by the European Commission,[2] in 2014 there were 22 million SMEs active in the non-financial business sectors, generating more than €3.7 trillion in added value and employing approximately 90 million people. SMEs’ contribution to the European economy becomes even more apparent if one considers that 99 out of every 100 enterprises active in the EU non-financial economy are SMEs, and that these firms account for about 67% of the total employment and some 60% of the overall added value produced in Europe. Against this background, enhancing the competitiveness of European SMEs is essential in order to foster the competitiveness of the EU economy as a whole. And since the competitiveness of European SMEs in the global arena largely depends on their ability to innovate,[3] unlocking the innovation potential of SMEs becomes pivotal to fostering growth and jobs in Europe.

Drug Reformulation Regulatory Gaming in Pharmaceuticals: Enforcement & Innovation Implications

This article examines drug reformulation regulatory gaming as a vehicle for analyzing the way in which European courts and the Commission are currently approaching innovation issues in the pharmaceutical sector. First, the economics literature regarding pharmaceutical innovation is briefly summarized. Next, the phenomenon of regulatory gaming is introduced, followed by an analysis of the two primary theories of harm being used to address drug reformulations as a competition concern. In comparing the recent General Court decision in AstraZeneca to earlier U.S. court cases addressing similar conduct, it is asserted that these approaches differ in significant ways with regards to preservation of innovation incentives as well as on the basis of institutional and evidentiary concerns. Finally, this discussion is then placed into the broader context of the ongoing debate regarding pharmaceutical innovation that first surfaced in the Syfait cases—in particular, the desirability of sector-specific competition law analysis of pharmaceutical innovation.