ICT for growth: a targeted approach. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2012/10, June 2012

This Policy Contribution assesses the broad obstacles hampering ICT-led growth in Europe and identifies the main areas in which policy could unlock the greatest value. We review estimates of the value that could be generated through take-up of various technologies and carry out a broad matching with policy areas. According to the literature survey and the collected estimates, the areas in which the right policies could unlock the greatest ICT-led growth are product and labour market regulations and the European Single Market. These areas should be reformed to make European markets more flexible and competitive. This would promote wider adoption of modern data-driven organisational and management practices thereby helping to close the productivity gap between the United States and the European Union. Gains could also be made in the areas of privacy, data security, intellectual property and liability pertaining to the digital economy, especially cloud computing, and next generation network infrastructure investment. Standardisation and spectrum allocation issues are found to be important, though to a lesser degree. Strong complementarities between the analysed technologies suggest, however, that policymakers need to deal with all of the identified obstacles in order to fully realise the potential of ICT to spur long-term growth beyond the partial gains that we report.

What’s the use of a transatlantic free trade area? Jean Monnet Policy Brief 05/2014

For many of those who remember the hostile EU-US trade relations of the 1980’s and the various trade disputes that have emerged between these two trade partners since then, the opening of negotiations on a joint free trade area would be good news. Strengthened trade cooperation between the partners holds the promise of expanding their mutual exchange of goods and services, not the least by solving obstacles to integration on less transparent issues such as the extent to which product characteristics should be defined by their regional characteristics (e.g. can Budweiser be produced outside the Budweis region in the Czech Republic?).

State (un)Sustainability in the Southern Mediterranean and Scenarios to 2030: The EU’s Response. MEDPRO Policy Paper No. 1/August 2011(updated April 2012)

This research project is the product of a conviction, corroborated by the events that have overwhelmed the Arab world since December 2010, that sustainability is essential to any understanding of Mediterranean politics. Sustainability has too often been confused with stability in policy debates in the region and in the West. Not only are these two concepts distinct, with sustainability being broader and deeper than stability, but stability, as interpreted with regard to the regimes in the region, has often run counter to the very conditions that underpin state sustainability. Believing and thus pursuing regime stability has ultimately acted to the detriment of a more organic understanding of state sustainability.

Mutual recognition in goods and services: an economic perspective. Bruges European Economic Policy (BEEP) Briefing 2/2002

Mutual recognition is a remarkable innovation facilitating economic intercourse across borders. In the EU's internal goods market it has been helpful in tackling or avoiding the remaining obstacles, namely, regulatory barriers between Member States. However, there is a curious paradox. Despite the almost universal acclaim of the great merits of mutual recognition the principle has, in and by itself, contributed only modestly to the actual realisation of free movement in the single market. It is also surprising that economists have not or hardly underpinned their widespread appreciation for the principle by providing rigorous analysis which could substantiate the case for mutual recognition for policy makers. Business in Europe has shown a sense of disenc hantment with the principle because of the many costs and uncertainties in its application in actual practice. The purpose of the present paper is to provide the economic and strategic arguments for employing mutual recognition much more systematically in the single market for goods and services. The strategic and the "welfare" gains are analysed and adetailed exposition of the fairly high information , transaction and compliance costs is provided. The information costs derive from the fact that mutual recognition remains a distant abstraction for day-to-day business life. Understandably, verifying the "equivalence" of objectives of health and safety between Member States is perceived as difficult and uncertain. This sentiment is exacerbated by the complications of interpreting the equivalence of "effects". In actual practice, these abstractions are expected to override clear and specific national product or services rules, which local inspectors or traders may find problematic without guidance. The paper enumerates several other costs including, inter alia, the absence of sectoral rule books and the next-to-prohibitive costs of monitoring of the application of the principle. The basic problems in applying mutual recognition in the entire array of services are inspected, showing why the principle can only be used in a limited number of services markets and even there it may contribute only modestly to genuine free movement and competitive exposure. A special section is devoted to a range of practical illustrations of the difficulties business experiences when relying on mutual recognition. Finally, the corollary of mutual recognition - regulatory competition - is discussed in terms of a cost/benefits analysis compared to what is often said to be the alternative , that is "harmonisation" , in EU parlance the "new approach" to approximation. The conclusion is that the manifold benefits of mutual recognition for Europe are too great to allow the present ambiguities to continue. The Union needs much more pro-active approaches to reduce the costs of mutual recognition as well as permanent monitoring structures for its application to services (analogous to those already successfully functioning in goods markets). Above all, what is required is a "mutual recognition culture" so that the EU can better enjoy the fruits of its own regulatory ingenuity.

Reform momentum and its impact on Greek growth. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2015/12, July 2015

Greece has an imperfect track-record of structural reform implementation. However, the poor growth outcome of the Greek programmes is also a consequence of the timing and composition of reforms, which were not optimally geared towards a speedy transition to a new growth model based on the private sector. While the main responsibility for this lies with the Greek authorities, international institutions share the responsibility for the poor growth-enhancing effect of reforms. In the current context, further structural reform efforts should be mainly targeted at supporting Greece's speedy return to solid growth rates. This is not only because poverty and unemployment have reached very high levels, but also for political economy reasons: reforms must quickly be seen to be working in order to buttress the consensus in favour of reform. Further efforts should be made to improve Greece’s business environment and to liberalise product markets, in addition to shifting taxation away from labour and towards consumption. Reforms to improve the quality of institutions should continue and are very much needed in the Greek setting, while taking into account that their demanding implementation might use up administrative capacity and their impact on growth will only be seen over long time horizons.

Who Benefits from a Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement? Policy Brief #2013/04

From a purely economic standpoint, the US and the entire EU will profit from a dismantling of tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers between both regions. The real gross domestic product per capita would increase in the US and in all 27 EU member countries. Also when one looks at labor markets, the positive effects on employment predominate: Two million additional jobs could be created in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) zone over the long run. The public welfare gains of these economies admittedly do stand in contrast with real losses in income and employment in the rest of the world. On balance, however, the beneficial effects on economic welfare prevail.

Who profits most from globalization? Policy Brief #2014/01

Globalization, understood as the economic, political and social interconnection of countries, leads to increased economic growth. On average, the more a country proceeds its interconnection with the rest of the world, the greater its economic growth will be. If real per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is chosen as the reference index for the economic benefits of globalization, Finland can point to the largest gain from globalization from 1990 to 2011. Ranked according to this perspective, Germany holds fourth place out of a total of 42 economies evaluated.

20 years of the European single market: growth effects of EU integration. Policy Brief #2014/02

The ongoing European integration has increased the economic growth of participating national economies. Calculating the cumulative gains in the real gross domestic product per capita resulting from the integration of Europe between 1992 and 2012, every national economy under consideration realized income gains from the European integration. Denmark and Germany saw the greatest gains per resident. If the values from only 1992 and 2012 are compared, every country except for Greece has been able to achieve a higher per capita income due to the European integration.

Brexit – potential economic consequences if the UK exits the EU. Policy Brief #2015/05

If the United Kingdom (UK) exits the EU in 2018, it would reduce that country’s exports and make imports more ex-pensive. Depending on the extent of trade policy isolation, the UK’s real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita would be between 0.6 and 3.0 percent lower in the year 2030 than if the country remained in the EU. If we take into ac-count the dynamic effects that economic integration has on investment and innovation behavior, the GDP losses could rise to 14 percent. In addition, it will bring unforeseeable political disadvantages for the EU – so from our perspective, we must avoid a Brexit.

Society – the decisive player in Ukrainian politics? Bertelsmann Policy Brief, 17.02.2014

This study is first in a series of policy briefs on Europe and its neighbours in the east and south. In this series we will publish papers commissioned or produced by the Bertelsmann Stiftung in the framework of its work in this field. This policy brief is the product of the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s cooperation with the Warsaw-based Institute of Public Affairs. The text was completed on 17 of February 2014.