Does EU regulation hinder or stimulate innovation? CEPS Special Report No. 96, 19 November 2014

Introduction. One frequently hears the question posed in the title to this report, but there is little systematic analytical literature on the issue. Fragmented evidence or anecdotes dominate debates among EU regulatory decision-makers and in European business, insofar as there is a genuine debate at all. This CEPS Special Report focuses on the multi-faceted, ambiguous and complex relationship between (EU) regulation and innovation in the economy, and discusses the innovation-enhancing potential of certain regulatory approaches as well as factors that tend to reduce incentives to innovate. It adopts an 'ecosystem' approach to both regulation and innovation, and study the interactions between the two ecosystems. This general analysis and survey are complemented by seven case studies of EU regulation enabling and disabling innovation, two horizontal and five sectoral ones. The case studies are preceded by a broader contextual analysis of trends in EU regulation over the last three decades. These trends show the significant transformation of the nature as well as improvement of the quality of EU regulation, largely in the deepened internal market, which tend to have a favourable and lasting effect on the rate of innovation in the EU (other things being equal). Among the findings include the following: Regulation can at times be a powerful stimulus to innovation. EU regulation matters at all stages of the innovation process. Different types of regulation can be identified in terms of innovation impact: general or horizontal, innovation-specific and sector-specific regulation. More prescriptive regulation tends to hamper innovative activity, whereas the more flexible EU regulation is, the better innovation can be stimulated. Lower compliance and red-tape burdens have a positive effect on innovation. The authors recommend incorporating a specific test on innovation impacts in the ex-ante impact assessment of EU legislation as well as in ex-post evaluation. There is ample potential for fostering innovation by reviewing the EU regulatory acquis.

Do agricultural subsidies crowd out or stimulate rural credit institutions? The Case of CAP Payments. Factor Markets Working Paper No. 4, September 2011

In this paper we estimate the impact of subsidies from the EU’s common agricultural policy on farm bank loans. According to the theoretical results, if subsidies are paid at the beginning of the growing season they may reduce bank loans, whereas if they are paid at the end of the season they increase bank loans, but these results are conditional on whether farms are credit constrained and on the relative cost of internal and external financing. In the empirical analysis, we use farm-level panel data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network to test the theoretical predictions for the period 1995–2007. We employ fixed-effects and generalised method of moment models to estimate the impact of subsidies on farm loans. The results suggest that subsidies influence farm loans and the effects tend to be non-linear and indirect. The results also indicate that both coupled and decoupled subsidies stimulate long-term loans, but the long-term loans of large farms increase more than those of small farms, owing to decoupled subsidies. Furthermore, the results imply that short-term loans are affected only by decoupled subsidies, and they are altered by decoupled subsidies more for small farms than for large farms; however, when controlling for endogeneity, only the decoupled payments affect loans and the relationship is non-linear.

Proposals to stimulate rural economic development [microform] : hearings before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, and Rural Development of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, second session, March 23, 30, and June 15, 1988.

"Serial no. 100-75."

Examples and ideas to stimulate and improve the design, art & architecture of airports /

Includes bibliographical references.

National housing act : hearings before the Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, Seventy-third Congress, second session, on S. 3603, a bill to improve nation-wide housing standards, provide employment and stimulate industry ; to improve conditions with respect to home mortgage investment, and to eliminate the necessity for costly second-mortgage financing, by creating a system of mutual mortgage insurance and by making provision for the organization of additional institutions to handle home financing ; to promote thrift and protect savings ; to amend the Federal home loan bank act ; to amend the Federal reserve act ; and for other purposes. May 16-24, 1934.

Duncan U. Fletcher, chairman.

Government control of the meat-packing industry. Hearings before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Sixty-fifth Congress, third session, on S. 5305, a bill to stimulate the production, sale, and distribution of live stock and live-stock products, and for other purposes. Part I-[2]. ... .

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

Mechanical stimulation alters pleiotrophin and aggrecan expression by human intervertebral disc cells and influences their capacity to stimulate endothelial migration

Study Design. The influence of mechanical load on pleiotrophin (PTM) and aggrecan expression by intervertebral disc (IVD) cells, and the effects of disc cell conditioned medium on endothelial cell migration was investigated. Objective. To examine possible interactions of mechanical loads and known pro- and antiangiogenic factors, which may regulate disc angiogenesis during degeneration. Summary of Background Data. Pleiotrophin expression can be influenced by mechanical stimulation and has been associated with disc vascularization. Disc aggrecan inhibits endothelial cell migration, suggesting an antiangiogenic role. A possible interplay between these factors is unknown. Methods. The influence of the respective predominant load (cyclic strain for anulus fibrosus and hydrostatic pressure for nucleus pulposus cells) on PTN and aggrecan expression by IVD cells was determined by real-time RT-PCR and Western blotting (PTN only). The effects of IVD cell conditioned medium on endothelial cell migration were analyzed in a bioassay using human microvascular endothelial (HMEC-1) cells. Results. Application of both mechanical loads resulted in significant alterations of gene expression of PTN (+67%, P = 0.004 in anulus cells; +29%, P = 0.03 in nucleus cells) and aggrecan (+42%, P = 0.03 in anulus cells, -25%, P = 0.03 in nucleus cells). These effects depended on the cell type, the applied load, and timescale. Conditioned media of nucleus pulposus cells enhanced HMEC-1 migration, but this effect was diminished after 2.5 MPa hydrostatic pressure, when aggrecan expression was diminished, but not 0.25 MPa, when expression levels were unchanged. Conclusion. Mechanical loading influences PTN expression by human IVD cells. Conditioned media from nucleus pulposus cell cultures stimulated HMEC-1 endothelial cell migration. This study demonstrates that the influence of mechanical loads on vascularization of the human IVD is likely to be complex and does not correlate simply with altered expression of known pro- and antiangiogenic factors.