The Review of the Europe 2020 Strategy: From austerity to prosperity? CEPS Policy Brief No. 322, 28 October 2014

The future of Europe 2020 lies in its ability to become the protagonist of a new season in EU policy, in which countries can apply for more flexibility only if they can prove both structural reform and good governance, argues the author. By establishing a ‘new deal’ among member states, an improved Europe 2020 strategy can help Europe to complete its transition from austerity to prosperity. This Policy Brief makes the case for approaching the mid-term review of Europe 2020 on three different levels: i) the revision and update of the content of the Europe 2020 strategy, including its objectives, targets and major flagship initiatives; ii) the reform of the governance of the strategy; and iii) the repositioning of the strategy at the core of EU policy. The content of the strategy should be revised to include initiatives on infrastructure, the internal market and administrative capacity at all levels of government. The author sets out a number of policy recommendations for the European Commission and the member states to help realise these objectives.

DG CONNECT’s Stakeholder Engagement Strategy. IES Policy Brief Issue 2013/03 • April 2013

Summary. How do we ensure that public policy represents the interests of all, rather than a select few? How will we ensure it draws upon the best insights and talents of key stakeholders? The European Commission’s DG CONNECT recently announced the results of its Stakeholder Engagement Survey, which is designed to ‘provide empirical results and feedback about existing practices and signal gaps and challenges for action in the area of stakeholder engagement.’ (Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Stakeholders Unit D4, 2013, p.4). The survey launched a new round of reflection on the Commission’s relations with its stakeholders by asking respondents to reflect on the way in which they interact with DG CONNECT. The strategic objective is to see how ICTs can be used in novel ways to enhance support for policymaking from stakeholders in the EU. The Stakeholder Engagement Survey makes a start at answering critical questions about use of ICT as a tool to build ‘smarter policy’ as part of DG CONNECT’s wider step toward defining a strategy for stakeholder engagement. This IES Policy Brief welcomes this current work-in-progress, and outlines some of the challenges that may await the European Commission as it seeks to exploit the full potential of ICT in stakeholder engagement. It provides an initial analysis of the results of this first Stakeholder Engagement Survey, and concludes that whilst many things have changed with regards to tools that policymakers can use to elicit input into policymaking, certain challenges have remained very much the same.

Does Europe Need a Common Foreign & Security Policy? CES Germany & Europe Working Papers, No. 06.1, 15 September, 1996

CFSP's performance is widely regarded as weak. Why did Europe's stance in world politics not improve with the Treaty of Maastricht? The article analyses the present policy approach and the institutionalist and militarystrategic reform proposals. It is argued that policy and proposals suffer from drawbacks leading to an uncomprehensive formulation of a Common Foreign and Security Policy. Both do not provide CFSP with a necessary strategy but instead largely duplicate existing organizations. Furthermore, they propose concepts that are not viable because member states do not agree on a common defense policy. In addition, they fail to offer answers adequate to today's challenges, which are not primarily military in nature. Instead, a socioeconomic security policy appears to be a more realistic option. It is necessary because no other organization provides it sufficiently; it is viable because member states could agree on iti and it is adequate because the stabilization of countries in Eastern Europe is best achieved by social and economic policy-and not by military deterrence.

European climate finance: securing the best return. Bruegel Policy Brief ISSUE 2015/03, 11 September 2015

Combating climate change is perhaps the most formidable public policy challenge of our times. Unmitigated climate change will be irreversible. It will place significant costs on future generations, and expose them to unexplored risks. To mitigate climate change, global coordination is indispensable. European Union citizens consider climate change a central problem. The EU and its member states have therefore put in place signficant and costly climate mitigation policies.

Passenger-car equivalents of trucks in composite traffic. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Program and Policy Planning, Washington, D.C.

Advanced filtering and prediction software for urban traffic control systems. Final report.

Transportation Department, Office of University Research, Washington, D.C.

Urban pedestrian safety. Issue paper. Revised ed.

Mode of access: Internet.

Federal industrial innovation policy: review of congressional and task force activity. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

Diagnostic versus preventive urban transportation planning.

Mode of access: Internet.

Case studies and annotated bibliography of truck accident countermeasures on urban freeways. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety and Traffic Operations Research and Development, McLean, Va.

Relationships between off-road fixed-object accident rates and roadway elements of urban highways. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Urban transportation policies and activities - a report to the Congress of the U.S. Final report.

Mode of access: Internet.

Private sector involvement in urban transportation.

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Department of Transportation: enhancing policy and program effectiveness through improved management.

Mode of access: Internet.

Accident analysis for urban freeways. Volume I. Technical report. Final report.

Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, Austin