Does the Stockholm Programme matter? The struggles over ownership of AFSJ multiannual programming. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security No. 51/December 2012

Does the 2009 Stockholm Programme matter? This paper addresses the controversies experienced at EU institutional levels as to ‘who’ should have ownership of the contours of the EU’s policy and legislative multiannual programming in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) in a post-Lisbon Treaty landscape. It examines the struggles around the third multiannual programme on the AFSJ, i.e. the Stockholm Programme, and the dilemmas affecting its implementation. The latest affair to emerge relates to the lack of fulfilment by the European Commission of the commitment to provide a mid-term evaluation of the Stockholm Programme’s implementation by mid-2012, as requested by both the Council and the European Parliament. This paper shifts the focus to a broader perspective and raises the following questions: Is the Stockholm Programme actually relevant? What do the discussions behind its implementation tell us about the new institutional dynamics affecting European integration on the AFSJ? Does the EU actually need a new (post- Stockholm) multiannual programme for the period 2015–20? And last, what role should the EP play in legislative and policy programming in order to further strengthen the democratic accountability and legitimacy of the EU’s AFSJ?

Does All Fit One Size? An evaluation of the ECB policy response to changing economic conditions in the Euro area member states. ACES Cases No. 2008.1

This paper empirically investigates the extent to which the European Central Bank has responded to evolving economic conditions in its member states as opposed to the euro area as a whole. Based on a forward-looking Taylor rule-type policy reaction function, we conduct counterfactual exercises that compare the monetary policy behavior of the ECB with two alternative hypothetical scenarios: (1) were the euro member states to make individual policy decisions, and (2) were the ECB to respond to the economic conditions of individual members. The results reflect the extent of heterogeneity among the national economies in the monetary union and indicate that the ECB's monetary policy rates have been particularly close to the "counterfactual" interest rates of its largest euro members, as well as of countries with similar economic conditions, which includes Germany, Austria, Belgium and France.