The triggers of competitiveness: the EFIGE cross-country report. Bruegel Blueprint 17, 17 July 2012

There is a pressing need for Europe to grow out of the crisis, meaning that Europe needs to become more competitive, enabling it to capture growth currently taking place mainly in emerging markets. But what are the triggers of competitiveness? The EFIGE project, led by Bruegel, takes a fresh look by inquiring into the determinants of firm-level international performance – focusing on external competitiveness. In the competitiveness debate, it is crucial to understand not only the macroeconomic challenge, but also to find the right micro-level triggers that will generate growth and exports. The authors identify firm-level total factor productivity as a major determinant of growth and exports. Human capital, research, equity finance and performance based incentives for employees also play their parts. Moreover, size matters and large firms typically are much better exporters than their smaller counterparts. This report builds on previous EFIGE research and studies in depth firm performance in seven countries (Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom) to identify the triggers of competitiveness.

Antitrust, Regulation and the Neutrality Trap: A plea for a smart, evidence-based internet policy. CEPS Special Report No. 104/April 2015

When they look at Internet policy, EU policymakers seem mesmerised, if not bewitched, by the word ‘neutrality’. Originally confined to the infrastructure layer, today the neutrality rhetoric is being expanded to multi-sided platforms such as search engines and more generally online intermediaries. Policies for search neutrality and platform neutrality are invoked to pursue a variety of policy objectives, encompassing competition, consumer protection, privacy and media pluralism. This paper analyses this emerging debate and comes to a number of conclusions. First, mandating net neutrality at the infrastructure layer might have some merit, but it certainly would not make the Internet neutral. Second, since most of the objectives initially associated with network neutrality cannot be realistically achieved by such a rule, the case for network neutrality legislation would have to stand on different grounds. Third, the fact that the Internet is not neutral is mostly a good thing for end users, who benefit from intermediaries that provide them with a selection of the over-abundant information available on the Web. Fourth, search neutrality and platform neutrality are fundamentally flawed principles that contradict the economics of the Internet. Fifth, neutrality is a very poor and ineffective recipe for media pluralism, and as such should not be invoked as the basis of future media policy. All these conclusions have important consequences for the debate on the future EU policy for the Digital Single Market.