Framing Banking Union in the Euro Area: Some empirical evidence. CEPS Working Document No. 389, 3 February 2014

Evidence shows that financial integration in the euro area is retrenching at a quicker pace than outside the union. Home bias persists: Governments compete on funding costs by supporting ‘their’ banks with massive state aids, which distorts the playing field and feeds the risk-aversion loop. This situation intensifies friction in credit markets, thus hampering the transmission of monetary policies and, potentially, economic growth. This paper discusses the theoretical foundations of a banking union in a common currency area and the legal and economic aspects of EU responses. As a result, two remedies are proposed to deal with moral hazard in a common currency area: a common (unlimited) financial backstop to a privately funded recapitalisation/resolution fund and a blanket prohibition on state aids.

Building International CSR on Solid Foundations: Location and Network Aspects of Nonmarket Environments in Europe and Non-Europe Markets. ACES Working Papers, 2011

Multinational companies' (MNCs) corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs frequently comprise a portfolio of disconnected country-level programs or, alternatively, consist of blanket corporate policies that apply in the same way across the geographies where the company operates. Yet, the international nonmarket environment in which CSR programs operate is neither a completely fragmented nor a perfectly homogeneous one. Building on the concept of stakeholder-issue-networks, we develop a model that explicitly takes into consideration the role of geography in the characterization of a firm's nonmarket environment. This allows us to develop a taxonomy of nonmarket environments on the basis of their geographic spread and their degree of cross-border connectedness. We then explore the strategic and organizational implications that different ideal types of (cross-border) nonmarket environments have for the development of international CSR policies.

To be in, or to be out: reflections on the Danish referendum. EPIN Commentary No. 29, 10 December 2015

In this EPIN Commentary, Catharina Sørensen offers her reflections on Denmark’s referendum, held on December 3rd, on whether the country should change its blanket opt-out on all justice and home affairs cooperation in the EU to the more nuanced opt-in model adopted by the UK and Ireland. In her view, the outcome reflected the two separate ‘languages’ deployed in the public debate over the referendum – the emotional discussion about sovereignty, which appealed to the heart, and the technical argument about cooperation, which appealed to reason. In using these two languages, the campaigners spoke past one another, failed to understand each other and divided Denmark into two opposing camps.