Open Season for Data Fishing on the Web: The Challenges of the US PRISM Programme for the EU. CEPS Policy Brief No. 293, 18 June 2013

The revelation of the top-secret US intelligence-led PRISM Programme has triggered wide-ranging debates across Europe. Press reports have shed new light on the electronic surveillance ‘fishing expeditions’ of the US National Security Agency and the FBI into the world’s largest electronic communications companies. This Policy Brief by a team of legal specialists and political scientists addresses the main controversies raised by the PRISM affair and the policy challenges that it poses for the EU. Two main arguments are presented: First, the leaks over the PRISM programme have undermined the trust that EU citizens have in their governments and the European institutions to safeguard and protect their privacy; and second, the PRISM affair raises questions regarding the capacity of EU institutions to draw lessons from the past and to protect the data of its citizens and residents in the context of transatlantic relations. The Policy Brief puts forward a set of policy recommendations for the EU to follow and implement a robust data protection strategy in response to the affair.

What Cameron should have known: Q &A. CEPS Commentary, 4 November 2014

The surprise revelation that the UK would be paying a surcharge to the EU budget of €2.1 billion sent Prime Minister Cameron into a rampage. How could this misunderstanding have arisen, as the resources mechanism of the EU budget uses a rather rigid method of calculation agreed by all member states? In this Commentary, CEPS budget specialist Jorge Núñez Ferrer has adopted a Q&A format to provide a straightforward technical explanation of how the surcharge came about in an attempt to dispel the Machiavellian phantasies it has inspired in journalists and eurosceptics alike.

The Economics of EU Railway Reform. Bruges European Economic Policy (BEEP) Briefing 8/2004

The EU began railway reform in earnest around the turn of the century. Two ‘railway packages’ have meanwhile been adopted amounting to a series of directives and a third package has been proposed. A range of complementary initiatives has been undertaken or is underway. This BEEP Briefing inspects the main economic aspects of EU rail reform. After highlighting the dramatic loss of market share of rail since the 1960s, the case for reform is argued to rest on three arguments: the need for greater competitiveness of rail, promoting the (market driven) diversion of road haulage to rail as a step towards sustainable mobility in Europe, and an end to the disproportional claims on public budgets of Member States. The core of the paper deals respectively with market failures in rail and in the internal market for rail services; the complex economic issues underlying vertical separation (unbundling) and pricing options; and the methods, potential and problems of introducing competition in rail freight and in passenger services. Market failures in the rail sector are several (natural monopoly, economies of density, safety and asymmetries of information), exacerbated by no less than 7 technical and legal barriers precluding the practical operation of an internal rail market. The EU choice to opt for vertical unbundling (with benefits similar in nature as in other network industries e.g. preventing opaque cross-subsidisation and greater cost revelation) risks the emergence of considerable coordination costs. The adoption of marginal cost pricing is problematic on economic grounds (drawbacks include arbitrary cost allocation rules in the presence of large economies of scope and relatively large common costs; a non-optimal incentive system, holding back the growth of freight services; possibly anti-competitive effects of two-part tariffs). Without further detailed harmonisation, it may also lead to many different systems in Member States, causing even greater distortions. Insofar as freight could develop into a competitive market, a combination of Ramsey pricing (given the incentive for service providers to keep market share) and price ceilings based on stand-alone costs might be superior in terms of competition, market growth and regulatory oversight. The incipient cooperative approach for path coordination and allocation is welcome but likely to be seriously insufficient. The arguments to introduce competition, notably in freight, are valuable and many e.g. optimal cross-border services, quality differentiation as well as general quality improvement, larger scale for cost recovery and a decrease of rent seeking. Nevertheless, it is not correct to argue for the introduction of competition in rail tout court. It depends on the size of the market and on removing a host of barriers; it requires careful PSO definition and costing; also, coordination failures ought to be pre-empted. On the other hand, reform and competition cannot and should not be assessed in a static perspective. Conduct and cost structures will change with reform. Infrastructure and investment in technology are known to generate enormous potential for cost savings, especially when coupled with the EU interoperability programme. All this dynamism may well help to induce entry and further enlarge the (net) welfare gains from EU railway reform. The paper ends with a few pointers for the way forward in EU rail reform.