Antitrust risk in EU manufacturing: A sector-level ranking. Bruegel Working Paper 2014/07, July 2014

The object of this paper is twofold: to provide a broad descriptive analysis of the risk of collusive behaviour throughout Europe in the manufacturing sector; and to identify those manufacturing sectors in which the European Commission has been more active in the past in its capacity of antitrust authority.

The EU-EFIGE/Bruegel-unicredit dataset. Bruegel Working Paper 2012/13, October 2012

This paper describes the EU-EFIGE/Bruegel-UniCredit dataset (in short the EFIGE dataset), a database recently collected within the EFIGE project (European Firms in a Global Economy: internal policies for external competitiveness) supported by the Directorate General Research of the European Commission through its 7th Framework Programme and coordinated by Bruegel. • The database, for the first time in Europe, combines measures of firms’ international activities (eg exports, outsourcing, FDI, imports) with quantitative and qualitative information on about 150 items ranging from R&D and innovation, labour organisation, financing and organisational activities, and pricing behaviour. Data consists of a representative sample (at the country level for the manufacturing industry) of almost 15,000 surveyed firms (above 10 employees) in seven European economies (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, Austria, Hungary). Data was collected in 2010, covering the years from 2007 to 2009. Special questions related to the behaviour of firms during the crisis were also included in the survey. • We illustrate the construction and usage of the dataset, capitalising on the experience of researchers who have exploited the data within the EFIGE project. Importantly, the document also reports a comprehensive set of validation measures that have been used to assess the comparability of the survey data with official statistics. A set of descriptive statistics describing the EFIGE variables within (and across) countries and industries is also provided.

Manufacturing Europe's Future. Bruegel Blueprint 21, 2 October 2013

‘Industrial policy is back!’ This is the message given in the European Commission’s October 2012 communication on industrial policy (COM (2012) 582 final), which seeks to reverse the declining role of the manufacturing industry, and increase its share of European Union GDP from about 16 percent currently to above 20 percent. Historical evidence suggests that the goal is unlikely to be achieved. Manufacturing’s share of GDP has decreased around the world over the last 30 years. Paradoxically, this relative decline has been a reflection of manufacturing’s strength. Higher productivity growth in manufacturing than in the economy overall resulted in relative decline. A strategy to reverse this trend and move to an industrial share of above 20 percent might therefore risk undermining the original strength of industry – higher productivity growth. This Blueprint therefore takes a different approach. It starts by looking in depth into the manufacturing sector and how it is developing. It emphasises the extent to which European industry has become integrated with other parts of the economy, in particular with the increasingly specialised services sector, and how both sectors depend on each other. It convincingly argues that industrial activity is increasingly spread through global value chains. As a result, employment in the sector has increasingly become highly skilled, while those parts of production for which high skill levels are not needed have been shifted to regions with lower labour costs.

Towards a New Industrial Policy for Europe. EPC Issue Paper No. 78, November 2014

An ambitious rhetoric has been adopted both at the European and national level towards industrial policy. Along with rhetoric, sweeping action plans to revive our industrial base and reverse off-shoring trends have been attempted. However, concrete measures undertaken have been inconsistent and weak compared to the magnitude of the challenges faced by European manufacturing as well as the policies implemented by our competitors. At the same time the economic and financial crisis has shed light on the risks of an excessive reliance on the service and financial sector and the necessity to look for new sources of growth. As a response, this Issue Paper, by Claire Dhéret, Senior Policy Analyst and Martina Morosi, Programme Assistant, argues that fostering a more innovative, knowledge-intensive, new technology-oriented and resource-efficient manufacturing industry in Europe is the right way to go. To this end, a new EU strategic vision on industrial policy, based on the operationalisation of European cooperation, is urgently required. The paper presents a toolkit for implementing the vision and a series of policy recommendations.

How did Targeted Government Trade Policies Impact the Productivity of Manufacturing Firms in Eastern Europe and Central Asia between 1995 and 2009? ACES Working Papers, 28 August 2012

This study investigates whether trade-related, targeted, government policies had an impact on the total factor productivity (TFP) of manufacturing firms in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ECA region) between 1995 and 2009. It does so by looking at how different types of primarily industry-specific trade policies (or their combinations) impacted firm productivity. The dependent variable is firm total factor productivity (TFP), calculated using the Levinsohn-Petrin approach. As an alternative measure of firm productivity, this study uses labor productivity. This study finds that, in most instances (10 out of 14 times), targeted policies do not show a significant impact on manufacturing firms’ TFP. Based on the analysis of 588 manufacturing firms in the ECA region, this study finds that, contrary to proponents of targeted policies, targeted trade-related government policies have a limited impact on the total factor productivity (TFP) in developing countries.

The revision of the Posted Workers Directive: towards a sufficient policy adjustment? EPC Discussion Paper, 20 April 2016

Labour mobility within the European Union continues to be a limited phenomenon. This concerns both long-term intra-EU mobility and more temporary forms of mobility such as posting of workers, i.e. workers posted to another member state in the framework of cross-border service provision. Yet, despite the limited nature of posting, this topic is far from being absent from the public and political debates. Several factors contribute to this. Firstly, a surge in the number of posted workers has been noticed over the recent years and increased attention has therefore been paid to this issue. Quite a few economic sectors, including construction, manufacturing, and social work, are very concerned by this trend. Secondly, several types of abuses have been recorded such as letter-box companies, bogus self-employment and exploitation of the posted workers' vulnerable situation. Thirdly, questions have been raised as to whether the balance struck by the EU legislator in 1996 (when adopting the Posted Workers Directive) between the freedom to provide crossborder services and the workers' social rights is still valid today. These elements highlight the need for a policy adjustment in order to preserve the legitimacy of the citizens' and workers' freedom to move and, to a certain extent, of the social dimension of the European project. In this context, the European Commission published a proposal to revise the 1996 Directive in order to strike a better balance between economic and social rights. But is this proposal sufficient to ensure a level playing field between economic actors and equal treatment between workers? How will this proposal affect the implementation of other EU initiatives aiming to tackle fraud and abuse? What else is needed to address the tensions between the Single Market principles and the EU's social objectives? This discussion paper, published in the context of the Dutch Presidency and the ongoing negotiations of a revised Directive on posted workers, focuses on these questions while proposing some concrete solutions for a fairer policy framework.