The world innovation landscape: Asia rising? Bruegel Policy Contribution 2013/02, February 2013

Highlights • Research and development spending has risen rapidly in Asia, particularly in China, which is now the world’s second R&D spender behind the United States.The increase in Korean and Chinese patent applications has been even more rapid, but Chinese patenting for exploitation on the main markets for innovation(the European Union, Japan and the US) is still marginal. • Asia's increased innovation spending is most prominently related to information and communication technologies. Overall, the Chinese and Korean economies are still not specialised in knowledge-intensive goods and services.Furthermore, China in particular is not (so far) capturing much value from its role as a manufacturer and exporter of high-tech goods; China remains mostly an assembler of goods, the value of which is created elsewhere. • It would be wrong to ignore China's innovation potential on the basis of its current performance. Its clear innovation ambitions are likely to drive its future growth. • Europe is struggling much more than the US to retain its place at the global innovation table. The EU should use Asia’s capacity building in innovation as an opportunity for value capture.

The changing landscape of financial markets in Europe, the United States and Japan. Bruegel Working Paper 2013/02, 18 March 2013

We compare the structure of the financial sectors of the EU27, Japan and the United States, looking at a set of 23 indicators. We find a large variation within the European Union in the structure of the financial sector. Using principal components analysis, we identify robust groups of EU countries. One group consists of the eastern European members that entered the EU more recently.These have substantially smaller financial sectors than the old member states. A second group can be classified as market-based (MBEU) and the third group is more bank-based (BBEU). We compare US, MBEU, BBEU, Eastern EU and Japan with the following main results. First, the groups within Europe are geographically related. Second, in many indicators, MBEU countries are closer to the (market-based) US, while BBEU countries more closely resemble Japan. Paradoxically, however, market-based EU countries also have large banking sectors. Banks in market-based countries have larger cross-border assets and liabilities, and derive a larger fraction of their income from fees, rather than interest income, than banks in bank-based countries. Finally, for most indicators, the ordering of groups of countries is quite stable over time, but while the crisis has had no impact on the relative ordering of the groups, it has slightly widened the gap between the US and all EU regions insome respects. We also find that during the crisis, substitution between market-based and bank-based sources of finance occurred in the US, and to a lesser extent in MBEU and BBEU countries.

Immigration and free movement in an unusual electoral race: what implications for the next political cycle? EPC Policy Brief, 20 May 2014

Immigration and freedom of movement of EU citizens are among the main issues debated throughout the European Parliament election campaign and have some potential in determining who tomorrow’s EU leaders will be. This Policy Brief looks at how the two policies are debated at national level – in France, Germany and the UK – and at EU level between the ‘top candidates’ for European Commission Presidency – Jean-Claude Juncker (EPP), Ska Keller (Greens), Martin Schulz (PES) and Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE) – who have participated in several public debates. Two different campaigns have been unfolding in front of EU citizens’ eyes. The tense debate that can be identified at national level on these issues, is not transferred to the EU level, where immigration and free movement are less controversial topics. Furthermore, although participating in European elections, national parties present agendas responding exclusively to the economic and social challenges of their Member State, while the candidates for the Commission Presidency bring forward ‘more European’ programmes. Hence, several aspects need to be reflected upon: What will the consequences of this discontinuity be? How will this impact the future European agenda in terms of immigration and free movement? What institutional consequences will there be? Answering these questions is not a simple task, however, this paper aims to identify the parameters that need to be taken into account and the political landscape which will determine the future EU agenda in terms of immigration and free movement.

On Political Union in Europe: The changing landscape of decisionmaking and political accountability. CEPS Essay No. 4, 21 February 2013

This essay discusses how recent developments have modified the existing allocation of tasks between the EU and national levels and the legitimising mechanisms in decision-making by the EU institutions. It examines in turn the increasing differentiation emerging in member states’ participation in EU policies and institutions, the changing configuration of executive powers and its relationship to the community method, the criteria governing the transfer of economic powers from the member states to the Union and the emerging democratic accountability and legitimising mechanisms before both the European and the national parliaments. Some main implications for the future of European institutions are summarised in the conclusions.

‘Bibi strikes back’. Israeli elections in a transforming domestic and international landscape. EPC Commentary, 26 March 2015

On 17 March 2015 Israeli citizens massively headed to the polls to renew the composition of the Knesset, the country’s legislative body, thereby also electing a new government after the early termination of the ruling coalition elected in 2013.

Evolving Patterns of Euroscepticism in the Danish Political Landscape. EPIN Commentary No. 25/15 July 2015

Catharina Sørensen observes in this new EPIN Commentary that the most significant result of the Danish elections on June 18th was not the change of government from centre-left to centre-right, but rather the possibility that the anti-immigration, anti-European integration Danish People’s Party (DPP) would also enter government. While its leadership elected not to do so, but rather to exercise influence from outside, the author further notes that one positive outcome of a new pro-European government that is dependent on a largely eurosceptic supporting party could be that EU issues will finally get the prominence in Danish politics that they deserve.

EU Budgetary Responses to the ‘Refugee Crisis’: Reconfiguring the Funding Landscape. CEPS Paper Liberty and Security in Europe No. 93/May 2016

This paper analyses the EU budgetary responses to the ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe. The European Commission has proposed several changes to the EU budget as well as the establishment of new funding instruments. The paper explores what the announced funding consists of, what role it plays in policy-making and what issues it generates. Throughout these budgetary responses the search for flexibility has been dominant, motivated by the need to respond more swiftly to humanitarian and operational needs. In addition, the paper argues that beyond implementation or management, the role of funding is also symbolic and communicative. In light of limited competences that are difficult to exercise, funding represents a powerful tool enabling the Commission to shape policy-making in times of crisis. At the same time, the dominant search for flexibility also challenges established funding rules and procedures. It has furthermore led to reduced space for democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament. More profoundly, EU funding for cooperation with third countries to prevent the inflow of refugees and asylum seekers has monetised questions over the responsibility for these individuals. As the EU–Turkey agreement shows, this has created a self-imposed dependence on third countries, with the risk of potentially insatiable demands for EU funding. This paper questions the proportionality and rule of law compliance of allocating funding for the implementation of this agreement. Moreover, it proposes that the Commission take steps to practically safeguard the humanitarian aid principles in the management structures of the new funding instruments, and it stresses the need for more scrutiny of the reconfigured funding landscape by the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors.