Ideas and Policy: The European Union considers social policy futures. ACES Cases No. 2010.2

The European Union’s social policy perspectives have changed quite dramatically over the last several decades. Now EU’s social policy discourse often promises to “invest in people,” sometimes “to invest in children,” and always to pay particular attention to youth. This paper argues that the tools of historical institutionalism can lead to understanding the ideational roots of this social investment perspective so distant from the “European social model.” Coming out of social movements, and with collective identities shaped both by those movement roots and national experiences, activists have effectively focused their practices on altering the social representations of European social solidarity through their interest group interventions, their participation in policy forums, and their mobilization within civil society at the European and sub-European levels. They have been able to make common cause with several epistemic communities that themselves revamped their ideas in the face of new institutional constraints, in order to advance their interests in promoting particular directions for social policy. The paper documents that “ideas” are not a variable and discourse “sometimes important” but that the ideas carried by movements and in epistemic communities are integral to the very definition of their interests that they promote within and with institutions.

Institutional Factors Affecting Agricultural Land Markets. Factor Markets Working Paper No. 16, February 2012

This paper analyses the main institutional factors affecting the rental and sales markets for agricultural land. Particular attention is paid to the effects of the common agricultural policy on land markets, and more specifically the underlying mechanism through which agricultural subsidies are capitalised into land values and farmland rents. This paper also provides a broad overview of the empirical studies that estimate the impact of agricultural support policies on land rents and land prices. Various other fundamental factors that affect agricultural land markets are discussed, such as land market institutions and regulations, transaction costs, credit market constraints and levels of profitability, the legal means of contract enforcement and land use alternatives.

Commonalities and Differences in Labour Market Developments and Constraints in Different EU Regions. Factor Markets Working Paper No. 22, February 2012

This paper provides a detailed overview of the differences across EU member states’ labour markets, through the extensive use of descriptive statistics. The objective is two-fold: firstly, it identifies the commonalities and differences in rural labour markets across EU regions and their developments, with special regard to agriculture, and secondly it emphasises the constraints that may hinder the efficient functioning of labour markets. Therefore, the paper starts with a description of the main indicators in the general labour market theory, such as the structure of the population in terms of age and gender distribution, unemployment and activity rates, employment levels, quality of human capital, migration patterns, and so forth. Secondly, we focus on the differences among rural and urban areas to then look closely at the agricultural sector. The institutional framework in which labour market institutions operate is also included. Lastly, as an attempt to summarise the analysis and to classify the EU member states according to certain rural and specific agricultural indicators, cluster analysis is also employed. Policy implications include investment in human capital and vocational training, support to young farmers, promoting economic diversification and upgrading infrastructure, with special regard to the new member states and to the Southern parts of Europe.

Defining an Institutional Framework for the Labour Market. Factor Markets Working Paper No. 24, February 2012

This paper describes a conceptual framework for the empirical analysis of farmers’ labour allocation decisions. The paper presents a brief overview of previous farm household labour allocation studies. Following this, the agricultural household model, developed by Singh, Squire and Strauss (1986), which has been frequently applied to the study of labour allocation, is described in more depth. The agricultural household model, the theoretical model to be used in this analysis, is based on the premise that farmers behave to maximise utility, which is a function of consumption and leisure. It follows that consumption is bound by a budget constraint and leisure by a time constraint. The theoretical model can then be used to explain how farmers decide to allocate their time between leisure, farm work and off-farm work within the constraints of a finite time endowment and a budget constraint. Work, both farm and off-farm, provides a return to labour which in turn relaxes the budget constraint allowing the farm household to consume more. The theoretical model can also be used to explore the impact on government policies on labour allocation. It follows that subsidies that decrease commodity prices, such as reductions in intervention prices, mean that farmers have to work more (either on or off the farm) to maintain income and consumption levels. On the other hand, income support subsidies that are not linked to output or labour, such as decoupled subsidies, are a source of non-labour income and as such allow farmers to work less while maintaining consumption levels, known as the wealth effect.

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND THE WTO: INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION AND ADAPTATION. CEPS Policy Brief No. 28/December

Overview. Questions about the interface between the multilateral climate regime embodied in the Kyoto Protocol and the multilateral trade regime embodied in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have become especially timely since the fall of 2001. At that time, ministerial-level meetings in Marrakech and Doha agreed to advance the agendas, respectively, for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and for negotiations on further agreements at the WTO. There have been concerns that each of these multilateral arrangements could constrain the effectiveness of the other, and these concerns will become more salient with the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. There are questions about whether and how the rights and obligations of the members of the WTO and the parties to the Protocol may conflict. Of particular concern is whether provisions in the Protocol, as well as government policies and business activities undertaken in keeping with those provisions, may conflict with the WTO non-discrimination principles of national treatment and most-favoured nation treatment. The WTO agreements that are potentially relevant to climate change issues include many of the individual Uruguay Round agreements and subsequent agreements as well. The principal elements of the Kyoto Protocol that are particularly relevant are its provisions concerning emissions trading, the Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, enforcement, and parties’ policies and measures. In combination, therefore, there are numerous potential points of intersection between the elements of the Kyoto Protocol and the WTO agreements. Previous studies have clarified many issues, as they have focused on particular aspects of the regimes’ relationships. Yet, some analyses suggest that the two regimes are largely compatible and even mutually reinforcing, while others suggest that there are significant conflicts between them. Those and other studies are referenced in the ‘suggestions for further reading’ section at the end of the paper.1 The present paper seeks to expand on those studies by providing additional breadth and depth to understanding of the issues. The analysis gives special attention to key issues on the agenda – i.e. issues that are particularly problematic because of the likelihood of occurrence of specific conflicts and the significance of their economic and/or political consequences. The paper adopts a modified ‘triage’ approach, which classifies points of intersection as (a) highly problematic and clearly in need of further attention, (b) perhaps problematic but less urgent, and (c) apparently not problematic, at least at this point in time. The principal conclusions are that: · The missions and objectives of the two regimes are largely compatible, and their operations are potentially mutually reinforcing in several respects. · Some provisions of the multilateral agreements that may superficially seem at odds are not likely to become particularly problematic in practice. · ‘Domestic policies and measures’ that governments may undertake in the context of the Protocol could pose difficult issues in the context of WTO dispute cases. · Recent WTO agreements and dispute cases acknowledge the legitimacy of the ‘precautionary principle’ and are thus consistent with the environmental protection objectives of the Protocol. · The relative newness of the climate regime creates opportunities for institutional adaptation, as compared with the constraints of tradition in the trade-investment regime. · The prospect of largely independent evolutionary paths for the two regimes poses a series of issues about future international regime design and management, which may require new institutional arrangements. In sum, the present paper thus finds that although there are some areas of interaction that are problematic, the two regimes may nevertheless co-exist in relative harmony in other respects –more like ‘neighbours’ than either ‘friends’ or ‘foes’, as Krist (2001) has suggested.

The EEAS and the Eastern Partnership: let the blame game stop. CEPS Commentary, 4 September 2012

In the first year and a half of its existence, the EEAS and its head have become the target of extensive criticism for the shortcomings of EU foreign policy; shortcomings that in fact date back to the creation of the European Union. The EU’s diplomatic service has been blamed variously for ‘lacking clarity,’ ‘acting too slowly’ and ‘being unable to bridge the institutional divide’. In this Commentary author Hrant Kostanyan argues that the EEAS’ discretionary power in the Eastern Partnership multilateral framework is restricted by the decision-making procedures between a wide range of stakeholders: the member states and the partner countries, as well as by the EU institutions, international organisations and the Civil Society Forum. Since this decision-making process places a substantial number of brakes on the discretionary power of the EEAS, any responsible analysis or critique of the service should take these constraints into consideration. Ultimately, the EEAS is only able to craft EU foreign policy insofar as it is allowed to do so.