Rulemaking in Super-RTAs: Implications for China and India. Bruegel Working Paper 2014/03, March 2014

The faltering Doha round has led to a renewed focus on large regional trade agreements. There are two super-RTAs in the making in the Asia-Pacific and one in the Atlantic, all with rather ambitious negotiation targets, and presented as alternate means to reset global trade rules and take the multilateral trade liberalisation agenda forward. So what does this development mean for large emerging markets such as China and India that are on the fringes of these regional trade negotiations? Can these agreements become alternate means of pressuring these Asian economies to follow new trade rules set by industrialised countries, especially given the progressive erosion of the policy dominance of industrialised countries and the strong dissenting voice of developing countries in the Doha Round? This paper examines how super-RTAs may emerge as game changers in the multilateral trading system as promulgated by the WTO, and the implications for China and India. The paper analyses the new economic governance system that is likely to emerge given the renewed interest in regionalism, and argues that while the super-RTAs will not be entirely benign in their impact on China and India, rather than forcing these economies to accept the higher new regulatory standards enshrined in the super-RTAs, a distinct possibility in the medium-term is the emergence and entrenchment of a dual regulatory regime in these economies.

The G-20, five years on. CEPS Essay No. 9, 3 March 2014

Now is time to take stock of the G-20. Just over five years ago, during the free fall of the global financial crisis, representatives from 20 of the world’s leading economies agreed to gather twice a year in order to develop a more sustainable regulatory framework for financial institutions. In this CEPS Essay, Karel Lannoo highlights many signs of promise, for example, the group has agreed on a new framework for regulatory standards for each country’s most important financial institutions and tasked a Financial Stability Board (FSB) with monitoring adherence to them. At the same time,however, he notes that the G-20 has fallen short of some expectations and continues to show serious flaws.

L’usage des mesures restrictives autonomes de l’Union européenne: deux poids deux mesures ou des mesures de poids? = The use of autonomous restrictive measures in the European Union: double standards or weight measures? EU Diplomacy Paper 09/2012, October 2012

No abstract.

Approximation to EU Technical Standards with and without the Promise of Membership: the Cases of Slovakia and Ukraine. EU Diplomacy Paper 02/2013

This paper aims to identify the extent to which the non-promise of membership of the European Union (EU) precludes the motivation of Ukraine as European Neighbourhood Policy country to adopt EU policies in the field of market access, namely technical standards and regulations. Its approximation approach is compared to the fast-tracked accession of Slovakia, which was driven by a clear-cut membership promise. Furthermore, the paper elaborates whether the conclusion of an Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, provides sufficient incentives for Ukraine to continue reforming its quality infrastructure in order to gain access to the Single European Market. Finally, scenarios of possible developments of EU-Ukraine relations are deliberated in the context of the EU-Ukraine-Russia triangle. The paper argues that market access provides sufficient stimulus for third countries to adhere to EU technical standards – even in the absence of a clear and credible promise of future EU membership. Yet, in the case of Ukraine, the country’s relations with Russia appear to compete with its EU approximation process, resulting for the time being in Ukraine attempting to pursue a balanced dual cooperation with both the EU and Russia.

Prospects for regulatory convergence under TTIP. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2013/15, October 2013

An ambitious, comprehensive and high-standard trade and investment agreement between the European Union and the United States is feasible, but a key concern is whether the transatlantic trade partners will succeed in creating a meaningful agreement within the tight timeline of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. The target of a ratified pact before a new European Commission takes office in November 2014 is an objective that is likely to conflict with the level of ambition on the substance. Regulatory congruence would require the unilateral and unconditional recognition by the TTIP partners of each other’s standards, procedures and conformity assessment tests. The way forward is to create a ‘living’ (or progressive commitment) agreement on regulatory cooperation with a horizontal template for coherence and conformity assessment and a detailed monitoring mechanism, with implementation starting immediately for a few selected sectors. Regulatory harmonisation under TTIP may not lead to emerging markets automatically upgrading to the higher TTIP standards. Domestic priorities and the high demand from a rising price-sensitive group of consumers will likely result in a dual regulatory regime in emerging markets in the medium-term.

Mutual Recognition: economic and regulatory logic in goods and services. Bruges European Economic Research (BEER) Papers 24/June 2012

Mutual recognition is one of the most appreciated innovations of the EU. The idea is that one can pursue market integration, indeed "deep' market integration, while respecting 'diversity' amongst the participating countries. Put differently, in pursuing 'free movement' for goods, mutual recognition facilitates free movement by disciplining the nature and scope of 'regulatory barriers', whilst allowing some degree of regulatory discretion for EU Member States. This BEER paper attempts to explain the rationale and logic of mutual recognition in the EU internal goods market, its working in actual practice for about three decades now, culminating in a qualitative cost/benefit analysis and its recent improvement in terms of 'governance' in the so-called New Legislative Framework (first denoted as the 2008 Goods package) thereby ameliorating the benefits/costs ratio. For new (in contrast to existing) national regulation, the intrusive EU procedure to impose mutual recognition is presented as well, with basic data so as to show its critical importance to keep the internal goods market free. All this is complemented by a short summary of the scant economic literature on mutual recognition. Subsequently, the analysis is extended to the internal market for services. This is done in two steps, first by reminding the debate on the origin principle (which goes further than mutual recognition EU-style) and how mutual recognition works under the horizontal services directive. This is followed by a short section on how mutual recognition works in vertical (i.e. sectoral) services markets.

TTIP’s Hard Core: Technical barriers to trade and standards. Paper No. 13 in the CEPS-CTR project ‘TTIP in the Balance’ and CEPS Special Report No. 117/August 2015

Michelle Egan and Jacques Pelkmans provide an overview of the TBT chapter in TTIP and the various issues between the US and the EU in this area, which in turn requires extensive expositions of domestic regulation in the US and the EU. TBTs, outside heavily regulated sectors such as chemicals, automobiles or medicines (which have separate chapters in TTIP), can be caused by divergent (voluntary) standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment. Indeed, in all three the US and the EU have long experienced frictions with considerable trading costs. The 1998 Mutual Recognition Agreement about conformity assessment only succeeded in two out of six sectors. The US and European standardisation traditions differ and this paper explains why it is so hard, also economically, to realise convergence. However, the authors reject the unproductive ‘stand-off’ between US and EU negotiators on standardisation and suggest to clarify the enormous economic ‘installed base’ of prominent US standards in the world economy and build a solution from there. As to technical regulation, the prospect of converging regulation (via harmonisation) is often dim, but equivalence (given similar levels of regulatory protection) can be an option.

Implementing Basel III in Europe: disgnosis and avenues for improvement. CEPS Policy Brief No. 275, 27 June 2012

This Policy Brief provides a preliminary diagnosis of the proposed regulatory reforms contained in the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD IV-CRR), which translate into EU law the Basel III standards adopted by the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, and suggests avenues for improvement. The main criticism is that the proposal is not ambitious enough. In some crucial areas, such as the leverage ratio and the long-term liquidity requirements adopted under the Basel III framework, the CRD IV-CRR proposal stops short of making a strict commitment to introduce binding requirements and instead is contented with weaker (and possibly divergent) disclosure requirements.