British Balance of Competence Reviews, Part III: More reform than renegotiation or repatriation. EPIN [Working] Paper No. 42/December 2014. [see Abstract for I and II]

This paper, the third in a series for a CEPS project on the ‘The British Question’, is pegged on an ambitious exercise by the British government to review all the competences of the European Union on the basis of evidence submitted by independent stakeholders. The reviews considered in this paper cover the following EU policies: the single market for services, financial markets, the free movement of people, cohesion, energy, agriculture, fisheries, competition, social and employment policies, and fundamental rights. The declared objective of Prime Minister Cameron is to secure a ‘new settlement’ between the UK and the EU. From political speeches in the UK one can identify three different types of possible demand: reform of EU policies, renegotiation of the UK’s specific terms of membership, and repatriation of competences from the EU back to the member states. As most of the reviews are now complete, three points are becoming increasingly clear: i) The reform agenda – past, present or future - concerns virtually every branch of EU policy, including several cases reviewed here that are central to stated UK economic interests. The argument that the EU is ‘unreformable’ is shown to be a myth. ii) The highly sensitive cases of immigration from the EU and social policies may translate into requests for renegotiation of specific conditions for the UK, but further large-scale opt-outs, as in the case of the euro and justice and home affairs, are implausible. iii) While demands for repatriation of EU competences are voiced in general terms in public debate in the UK, no specific proposals emerge from the evidence as regards competences at the level at which they are identified in the treaties, and there is no chance of achieving consensus for such ideas among member states. Michael Emerson and Steven Blockmans, “British Balance of Competence Reviews, Part I: ‘Competences about right, so far’”, CEPS/EPIN Working Paper No. 35, October 2013 (www.ceps.eu/book/british-balance-competence-reviews-part-i-%E2%80%98competences-about-right-so-far%E2%80%99)(http://aei.pitt.edu/45599/); Michael Emerson, Steven Blockmans, Steve Peers and Michael Wriglesworth, “British Balance of Competence Reviews, Part II: Again, a huge contradiction between the evidence and Eurosceptic populism”, CEPS/EPIN Working Paper No. 40, June 2014 (www.ceps.eu/book/british-balance-competence-reviews-part-ii-again-huge-contradiction-between-evidence-and-eurosc)(http://aei.pitt.edu/52452/).

Commonalities and Differences in Labour Market Developments and Constraints in Different EU Regions. Factor Markets Working Paper No. 22, February 2012

This paper provides a detailed overview of the differences across EU member states’ labour markets, through the extensive use of descriptive statistics. The objective is two-fold: firstly, it identifies the commonalities and differences in rural labour markets across EU regions and their developments, with special regard to agriculture, and secondly it emphasises the constraints that may hinder the efficient functioning of labour markets. Therefore, the paper starts with a description of the main indicators in the general labour market theory, such as the structure of the population in terms of age and gender distribution, unemployment and activity rates, employment levels, quality of human capital, migration patterns, and so forth. Secondly, we focus on the differences among rural and urban areas to then look closely at the agricultural sector. The institutional framework in which labour market institutions operate is also included. Lastly, as an attempt to summarise the analysis and to classify the EU member states according to certain rural and specific agricultural indicators, cluster analysis is also employed. Policy implications include investment in human capital and vocational training, support to young farmers, promoting economic diversification and upgrading infrastructure, with special regard to the new member states and to the Southern parts of Europe.

The Institutional Framework of the Labour Market. Factor Markets Working Paper No. 25, February 2012

Following the identification of relevant labour market characteristics in Deliverable 9.1 (Factor Markets Working Paper No. 25), a survey was designed and implemented across the participant countries in the Factor Markets project. These survey results are detailed in this paper, Deliverable 9.3. The focus is of the survey, which was completed with the assistance of project partner teams, included, employment market, labour legislation, wage-setting mechanisms, unions, taxation and social benefits, education and training, labour mobility and general features of agriculture. Based on the questions posed and the responses received in the survey, in broad terms the agricultural labour market characteristics in the countries under study are not as heterogeneous as one might anticipate. Some of the differences, such as minimum rates of pay, are common to sectors other than agriculture also. There is a notable lack of a regional pattern to the labour market characteristics, i.e. no strong evidence of a north/south or east/west divide. Moreover, the labour market characteristics of one country are not necessarily a good indicator of the labour market characteristics of neighbouring countries.

Drivers of agricultural capital productivity in selected EU member states. Factor Markets Working Paper No. 30, September 2012

The aim of this Working Paper is to provide an empirical analysis of the marginal return on working capital and fixed capital in agriculture, based on data gathered by the Farm Accountancy Data Network from seven EU member states. Particular emphasis is placed on the detection of credit market imperfections. The key idea is to provide farm group-specific estimates of the shadow price of capital, and to use these to analyse the drivers of on-farm capital use in European agriculture. Based on Cobb Douglas estimates of farm-type specific production functions, we find that working capital is typically used in more than economically optimal quantities and often displays negative marginal returns across countries and farm types. This is less often the case with regard to fixed capital, but it is only in a small set of sectors where access to fixed capital appears severely constrained. These sectors include field crop and mixed farms in Denmark, dairy farms in East Germany, as well as mixed farms in Italy and the UK. The relationship between farm financial indicators and the estimated shadow prices of capital varies considerably across countries and sectors. Among the farms with a high shadow price for fixed capital in Denmark, high debt levels and little owned land tended to induce more intensive capital use, which may reflect the liberal Danish banking system. In East Germany, Italy and the UK, high debt levels made farmers more tightly capital constrained. Hence, in the latter group of countries, more traditional mechanisms of capital allocation based on debt capacity seemed to be at work. As a general conclusion, EU agriculture appears to be characterised by overcapitalisation rather than by credit constraints.