Defining Europe's Capital Markets Union. Bruegel Policy Contribution Issue 2014/12, 13 November 2014

The new European Commission has signalled that it will work to create a ‘capital markets union’. This is understood as an agenda to expand the non-bank part of Europe’s financial system, which is currently underdeveloped. The aim in the short term is to unlock credit provision as banks are deleveraging, and in the longer term, to favour a more diverse, competitive and resilient financial system. Direct regulation of individual non-bank market segments (such as securitisation, private placements or private equity) might be useful at the margin, but will not per se lead to significant capital markets development or the rebalancing of Europe’s financial system away from the current dominance by banks. To reach these goals, the capital markets union agenda must be broadened to address the framework conditions for the development of individual market segments. Six possible areas for policy initiative are, in increasing order of potential impact and political difficulty: regulation of securities and specific forms of intermediation; prudential regulation, especially of insurance companies and pension funds; regulation of accounting, auditing and financial transparency requirements that apply to companies that seek external finance; a supervisory framework for financial infrastructure firms, such as central counterparties, that supports market integration; partial harmonisation and improvement of insolvency and corporate restructuring frameworks;and partial harmonisation or convergence of tax policies that specifically affect financial investment.

Education, migration, and job satisfaction: The regional returns of human capital in the EU. Bruges European Economic Research (BEER) Papers 1/November 2004

The paper looks at the link between human capital and regional economic performance in the EU. Using indicators of educational stock, the matching of educational supply and labour demand, and migration extracted from the European Community Household Panel (ECHP), it identifies that the economic performance of European regions over the last few years is generally associated with differences in human capital endowment. However, and in contrast to previous studies, the results highlight that factors such as the matching of educational supply and local labour needs, job satisfaction, and migration may have a stronger connection to economic performance than the traditional measures of educational stock.

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.

Which Union for Europe’s Capital Markets? ECMI Policy Brief No. 22, 13 February 2015

The call for a Capital Markets Union has been a useful device to raise awareness about the need for more integration in Europe's capital markets. Despite years of harmonising regulation and a single currency, Europe’s capital markets remain fragmented. This Policy Brief calls for targeted measures to overcome fragmentation, through enhanced enforcement, strengthening of the European supervisory authorities, enhanced disclosure and comparability of financial information and the mobilisation savings in EU-wide investment funds.

EU Supervisory Cooperation Scaled Back at the Expense of Capital Markets Union. CEPS Commentary, 20 April 2015

Making capital markets union a success can only happen by reinforcing supervisory cooperation and creating enforceable rules, which in turn require strong institutions functioning at the EU level. In this CEPS Commentary, Karel Lannoo argues that scaling back the European Supervisory Authorities – the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) – is entirely counterproductive from that perspective. While the EU may have well established institutions at the national level, he insists that capital markets union requires EU-wide rules for issuers, investors and intermediaries alike.

Capital Markets Union: a vision for the long term. Bruegel Policy Contribution ISSUE 2015/05 April 2015

Capital Markets Union (CMU) is a welcome initiative. It could augment economic risk sharing, set the right conditions for more dynamic development of risk capital for high-growth firms and improve choices and returns for savers. This offers major potential for benefits in terms of jobs, growth and financial resilience. • CMU cannot be a short-term cyclical instrument to replace subdued bank lending, because financial ecosystems change slowly. Shifting financial intermediation towards capital markets and increasing cross-border integration will require action on multiple fronts, including increasing the transparency, reliability and comparability of information and addressing financial stability concerns. Some quick wins might be available but CMU’s real potential can only be achieved with a long-term structural policy agenda. • To sustain the current momentum, the EU should first commit to a limited number of key reforms, including more integrated accounting enforcement and supervision of audit firms. Second, it should set up autonomous taskforces to prepare proposals on the more complex issues: corporate credit information, financial infrastructure, insolvency, financial investment taxation and the retrospective review of recent capital markets regulation. The aim should be substantial legislative implementation by the end of the current EU parliamentary term.

TRAC: a market-based tax on capital flight as an alternative to Grexit. CEPS Commentary, 7 May 2015

In this CEPS Commentary, Daniel Gros turns his attention to the main outstanding problem facing Greece today, namely capital flight. Fearful that the country will leave the euro, depositors are withdrawing cash from their bank accounts – thereby making this event more likely. He outlines a proposal in which outgoing payments from Greek banks in the form of cash or via the TARGET system would be limited to the amount of incoming payments, i.e. revenues from exports or tourism, via an auction system. Greece could remain formally a member of the euro area, but the price for cash withdrawals would encourage depositors to wait and stimulate exports.

Building a Capital Markets Union….or designing a financial system for the euro area? CEPS Commentary, 2 June 2015

In this CEPS Commentary, economists Anton Brender, Florence Pisani and Daniel Gros challenge the foundation on which the European Commission launched a key debate earlier this year on the development of the EU’s financial system, with publication of its Green Paper "Building a Capital Markets Union". While acknowledging that a single capital market could be useful in the European Union, they argue that it is extremely dangerous to conduct one and the same monetary policy in an area with broadly varying financial practices and structures – as the first 15 years of the euro area's history have vividly shown. They conclude that financial integration of the countries in EMU must receive top priority in a process that the rest of the European Union may then subsequently join.

Keep capital markets union simple. ECMI Commentary No. 38/July 2015

A few additional initiatives will need to be taken before a European capital markets union is able to unleash its full potential. The main problem is fragmentation, arising from the deep differences existing from one country to another in the structure of markets, user preferences and the availability of well organised, long-term saving schemes. Several attempts have been made to address these barriers, but with limited or uneven success so far

Light and shadows in Europe’s new Action Plan for Capital Markets Union. ECMI Commentary No. 40/5 October 2015

The European Commission’s Action Plan consists, in a nutshell, of a short list of technical proposals and a longer one of (rather general) potential actions. Overall, the plan indeed proposes to achieve some short-term objectives, such as a reduction of listing costs for SMEs, but it lacks long-term vision. The plan bundles actions under rather generic objectives of long-term finance or cross-border investing. Improving the informational infrastructure (e.g. accounting standards, company data) and cross-border enforcement of rules is left to vaguely defined future actions, but these constitute the core of the capital markets infrastructure. Without a well-defined set of measurable objectives, the whole plan may lose political momentum and become an opportunity for interested parties to cherry pick their pet provisions. Building a single market, i.e. removing cross-border obstacles to capital circulation, is too challenging a task to simply appear as one of many items on a long list of general objectives, which incidentally do not include institutional reform. The ultimate risk is that the Commission may just miss a unique opportunity to revamp and improve the financial integration process in Europe after almost a decade of harmful financial retrenchment.

Analysis of developments in EU capital flows in the global context. Bruegel Final study Bruegel N° 2015.2574, November 2015

Free movement of capital, which is one of the four fundamental economic freedoms of the European Union, can enhance welfare if it leads to better allocation of financial and productive resources. However, it can also be a source of vulnerability, with far-reaching spillovers. Monitoring and assessing capital flows is therefore crucial for policymakers, market participants and analysts.

Capital Markets Union: A Work in Progress: Quick and high impact measures for the Capital Markets Union. European Policy Brief No. 37, September 2015

Capital Markets Union has three objectives. The first objective is to improve access to finance for all businesses but especially SMEs; the second is to increase the share of capital markets in the funding mix of the real economy; and the third is to make capital markets more effective and integrate them more closely across borders. This paper examines the best impact measures for the Capital Markets Union to proceed successfully.

A Competitive assessment of the U.S. sports equipment industry /

"March 1988."

Pioneer woolen mills in Oregon; history of wool and the woolen textile industry in Oregon, 1811-1875,

Map on lining-papers.

Addressing the project implementation challenges in the Saudi Arabian power supply industry: an investigative approach towards improving project delivery

For many decades, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been widely known for being a reliable oil exporter. This fact, however, has not exempted it from facing significant domestic energy challenges. One of the most pressing of these challenges involves bridging the widening electricity supply-demand gap where, currently, the demand is growing at a very fast rate. One crucial means to address this challenge is through delivering power supply projects with maximum efficiency. Project delivery delay, however, is not uncommon in this highly capital-intensive industry, indicating electricity supplies are not coping with the demand increases. To provide a deeper insight into the challenges of project implementation and efficient practice, this research adopts a pragmatic approach by triangulating literature, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The research was conducted in the Saudi Arabian power supply industry – Western Operating Area. A total of 105 usable questionnaires were collected, and 28 recorded, semi-structured interviews were conducted, analysed and synthesised to produce a conceptual model of what constitutes the project implementation challenges in the investigated industry. This was achieved by conducting a comprehensive ranking analysis applied to all 58 identified and surveyed factors which, according to project practitioners in the investigated industry, contribute to project delay. 28 of these project delay factors were selected as the "most important" ones. Factor Analysis was employed to structure these 28 most important project delay factors into the following meaningful set of 7 project implementation challenges: Saudi Electricity Company's contractual commitments, Saudi Electricity Company's communication and coordination effectiveness, contractors' project planning and project control effectiveness, consultant-related aspects, manpower challenges and material uncertainties, Saudi Electricity Company's tendering system, and lack of project requirements clarity. The study has implications for industry policy in that it provides a coherent assessment of the key project stakeholders' central problems. From this analysis, pragmatic recommendations are proposed that, if enacted, will minimise the significance of the identified problems on future project outcomes, thus helping to ensure the electricity supply-demand gap is diminished.