The long-term EU budget: size or flexibility? Bruegel Policy Contribution 2012/20, November 2012

The EU is in the process of negotiating its 2014-20 financial framework. Failure to reach an agreement would imply a delay in the preparation of the strategic plans each member state puts together to explain how it will use Structural and Cohesion Funds. Even if solutions are found – for example annual renewals of the budget based on the previous year's figures – there will be political and institutional costs. EU leaders have too often and too forcefully advocated the use of the EU budget for growth to be able to drop the idea without consequences. • The overwhelming attention paid to the size of the budget is misplaced. EU leaders should instead aim to make the EU budget more flexible, safeguard it from future political power struggles, and reinforce assessment of the impact of EU funded growth policies. • To improve flexibility a commitment device should be created that places the EU budget above continuous political disagreement. We suggest the creation of a European Growth Fund, on the basis of which the European Commission should be allowed to borrow on capital markets to anticipate pre-allocated EU expenditure, such as Structural and Cohesion Funds. Markets would thus be a factor in EU budget policymaking, with a potentially disciplining effect. Attaching conditionality to this type of disbursement appears legitimate, as capital delivered in this way is a form of assistance.

Private long-term investment in uncertain times. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2012/23, December 2012

The economic and financial crisis in Europe is affecting the financing of long-term infrastructure investment. There are multiple clearly identifiable channels: reduced demand for long-term investment, a tightening prudential framework for lending, upward adjustment of risk perception, complex transition of the financial system, and increasing macroeconomic, sovereign and regulatory risk. Some of the identified channels are potentially dangerous spillovers from the crisis that entail the risk of a downward spiral (eg increasing regulatory risk), while others are efficient market responses (eg reduced investment demand, correction of pricing of risk). Consequently, public policy instruments should not address the accessibility of long-term finance per se, but should explicitly target the critical channels.

Role and potential influence of technologies on the most relevant challenges for long-term care. ENEPRI Research Report No. 113, 26 June 2012

This report considers three case studies (namely diabetes, dementia and obesity) for setting up a framework to assess the systemic influences of technologies in the long-term care milieu, using a problem-driven approach in relation to health care. Such technologies could be an enabling factor or a catalyser of advances taking place in the health and social sectors. They offer opportunities to support and amplify relevant organisational changes in the context of innovative care models, which stem from overall policies and regulations of a national or regional jurisdiction to address the future sustainability of health and social care.

Technological Solutions Potentially Influencing the Future of Long-Term Care. ENEPRI Research Report No. 114, April 2012

This report provides a forecast of the potential direct and indirect influences of various kinds of technologies on the LTC milieu, answering the following question: from a technology-driven perspective: “Consider each technological solution. What could be its future usage in the LTC sector?” Future technological deployments will induce changes in the respective roles of the care recipient and of the formal and informal carers, with an impact on three major concerns: the transformation of the care recipient into a proactive subject, the augmented potentiality for home care and the new functions that informal carers could assume.