New ICT sectors: platforms for European growth? Bruegel Policy Contribution 2012/14, August 2012

Europe's failure to specialise in new ICT sectors and firms is likely to hold back Europe’s post-crisis recovery. Europe lacks in particular leading platform providers, who are capturing most of the value in the new ICT ecosystem. • In-depth analysis of some specific new emerging ICT sectors shows that the problem in Europe appears not to be so much in the generation of new ideas, but rather in bringing ideas successfully to market. Among the barriers are the lack of a single digital market, fragmented intellectual property regimes, lack of an entrepreneurial culture, limited access to risk capital and an absence of ICT clusters. • The EU policy framework, particularly the Innovation Union and Digital Agenda EU 2020 Flagships, could better leverage the growth power for Europe of new ICT markets. The emphasis should move beyond providing support for infrastructure and research, to funding programmes for pre-commercial projects. But perhaps most important is dealing with the fragmentation in European digital markets.

Performance of long-term care systems in Europe. ENEPRI Policy Brief No. 13, December 2012

The evaluation of long-term care (LTC) systems carried out in Work Package 7 of the ANCIEN project shows which performance criteria are important and – based on the available information – how European countries score on those criteria. This paper summarises the results and discusses the policy implications. An overall evaluation was carried out for four representative countries: Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland. Of the four countries, the Dutch system has the highest scores on quality of life of LTC users, quality of care and equity of the LTC system, and it performs the secondbest after Poland in terms of the total burden of care (consisting of the financial burden and the burden of informal caregiving). The German system has somewhat lower scores than the Dutch on all four dimensions. The Polish system excels in having a low total burden of care, but it scores the lowest on quality of care and equity. The Spanish system has few extreme scores. Some important lessons are the following. The performance of a LTC system is a complex concept where many dimensions have to be included. Specifically, the impact of informal caregiving on the caregivers and on society should not be forgotten. The role of the state in funding and organising LTC versus individual responsibilities is one of the most important differences among countries. Choices concerning private funding and the role of informal care have a large effect not only on the public expenditures but also on the fairness of the system. International research into the relative preferences for the different performance criteria could produce a sound basis for the weights used in the overall evaluation.

Human exposure modelling for chemical risk assessment: a review of current approaches and research and policy implications

A wide variety of exposure models are currently employed for health risk assessments. Individual models have been developed to meet the chemical exposure assessment needs of Government, industry and academia. These existing exposure models can be broadly categorised according to the following types of exposure source: environmental, dietary, consumer product, occupational, and aggregate and cumulative. Aggregate exposure models consider multiple exposure pathways, while cumulative models consider multiple chemicals. In this paper each of these basic types of exposure model are briefly described, along with any inherent strengths or weaknesses, with the UK as a case study. Examples are given of specific exposure models that are currently used, or that have the potential for future use, and key differences in modelling approaches adopted are discussed. The use of exposure models is currently fragmentary in nature. Specific organisations with exposure assessment responsibilities tend to use a limited range of models. The modelling techniques adopted in current exposure models have evolved along distinct lines for the various types of source. In fact different organisations may be using different models for very similar exposure assessment situations. This lack of consistency between exposure modelling practices can make understanding the exposure assessment process more complex, can lead to inconsistency between organisations in how critical modelling issues are addressed (e.g. variability and uncertainty), and has the potential to communicate mixed messages to the general public. Further work should be conducted to integrate the various approaches and models, where possible and regulatory remits allow, to get a coherent and consistent exposure modelling process. We recommend the development of an overall framework for exposure and risk assessment with common approaches and methodology, a screening tool for exposure assessment, collection of better input data, probabilistic modelling, validation of model input and output and a closer working relationship between scientists and policy makers and staff from different Government departments. A much increased effort is required is required in the UK to address these issues. The result will be a more robust, transparent, valid and more comparable exposure and risk assessment process. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.