Carbon Market Opportunities in Southern Mediterranean Countries. MEDPRO Technical Report No. 8/March 2012

To date, Southern Mediterranean countries have hosted a limited number of projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). There are three challenges to the participation of middleincome countries in future carbon markets: the limited size of future demand for offsets or credits; restrictions on the use of CDM credits in Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme; and the lack of prompt preparation for the start of new market-based mechanisms. This study examines existing and emerging activities in Southern Mediterranean countries that could fit into new market based mechanisms. It explores options for the evolution of mechanisms and discusses the merits of post-2012 carbon funds in bridging the gap between the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and the entry into force of a new international agreement.

EU-US S&T Collaborations, Challenges and Opportunities for Development. Innovation Diplomacy, Special case in point: the Hellenic-American innovation bridge and its underlying dimensions. ACES Working Papers, October 2012

Developed and developing economies alike face increased resource scarcity and competitive rivalry. Science and technology increasingly appear as a main source of competitive and sustainable advantage for nations are regions alike. However, the key determinant of their efficacy is the quality and quantity of entrepreneurship-enabled innovation that unlocks and captures the pecuniary benefits of science enterprise in the form of private, public or hybrid goods (for instance, bio-entrepreneur-millionaires, knowledge for the public good - ie: public health awareness, and new public-private research centers funded partly by bio-entrepreneur-millionaires and monies levied as taxes on bio-ventures).

Quality of Democracy in Quadruple Helix Structures: The Quality of Democracy in the United States and in Austria, Challenges and Opportunities for Development. ACES Working Papers, 2012

This contribution focuses on analyzing the quality of democracy of the United States (U.S.) and of Austria by using a comparative approach. Even though comparisons are not the only possible or legitimate method of research, this analysis is based on the opinion that comparisons provide crucial analytical perspectives and learning opportunities. Following is the proposition, put directly forward: national political systems (political systems) are comprehensively understood only by using an international comparative approach. International comparisons (of country-based systems) are common (see the status of comparative politics, for example in Sodaro, 2004). Comparisons do not have to be based necessarily on national systems alone, but can also be carried out using “within”-comparisons inside (or beyond) sub-units or regional sub-national systems, for instance the individual provinces in the case of Austria (Campbell, 2007, p. 382).

Democracy Promotion and the EU, US Formulas: Photo Opportunities or Potential. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 14 No. 5, May 2014

Why do we think more of the United States (US) than the European Union (EU) in discussing Afghani or Iraqi democratization, and EU more than US when it is East European? Should not democratization be the same? A comparative study asks what democracy has historically meant in the two regions, how democratization has been spelled out, why instruments utilized differ, and democracy within global leadership contexts. Neither treats democracy as a vital interest, but differences abound: (a) While the US shifted from relative bottom-up to top-down democracy, the EU added bottom-up to its top-down approach; (b) the US interprets democracy as the ends of other policy interests, the EU treats it as the means to other goals; and (c) flexible US instruments contrast with rigid EU counterparts. Among the implications: (a) the 4-stage US approach reaches globally wider than EU’s multi-dimensional counterpart, but EU’s regional approach sinks deeper than the US’s; (b) human rights find better EU than US anchors; (c) whereas the US approach makes intergovernmental actions the sine qua non of democratization, EU’s intergovernmental, transnational, and supranational admixture promotes quid pro quo dynamics and incremental growth; and (d) competitive democratization patterns creates lock-ins for both recipient and supplier countries.

The Politics of Budget Consolidation in Britain and Germany: the Impact of Blame-Avoidance Opportunities. CES Germany & Europe Working Papers, No. 05.2, 2005

According to parts of the literature, blame avoidance opportunities, i.e. the necessity and applicability of blame avoidance strategies, may differ among countries according to the respective institutional set-ups and between governing parties according to their programmatic orientation. In countries with many veto actors, a strategy of "Institutional Cooperation" among these actors is expected to diffuse blame sufficiently to render other blame avoidance strategies obsolete. In contrast, governments in Westminster democracies should resort to the more unilateral strategies of presentation, policy design and timing. At the same time, parties of the left are expected to have an easier time implementing spending cuts while right parties are less vulnerable when proposing tax increases. Evidence from the politics of budget consolidation in Britain and Germany does not corroborate these hypotheses. Instead, it seems that party competition conditions the effects institutions and the partisan complexion of governments have on the politics of blame avoidance.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Challenges and Opportunities for Consumer Protection. Paper No. 11 in the CEPS-CTR project ‘TTIP in the Balance’ and CEPS Special Report No. 115/July 2015

This paper examines options for regulatory cooperation in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and assesses the challenges and opportunities posed by regulatory cooperation for consumer protection. It looks at existing approaches to regulatory cooperation by referencing a range of case studies. Based on established practice and on the European Commission’s recently published proposal on regulatory cooperation, we discuss a possible approach that could be adopted in the TTIP. Against the significant potential gains from improved regulatory cooperation, one must set the significant challenges of reconciling the different regulatory philosophies of the US and the EU as well as some differences in their respective approaches to cooperation. In broad terms, this analysis finds that regulatory powers on both sides of the Atlantic will not be significantly affected by the TTIP, but suggests that European and American legislators will need to ensure that their priorities shape the TTIP regulatory cooperation agenda and not the other way around.

The Circular Economy: Barriers and Opportunities for SMEs. CEPS Working Documents No. 412/September 2015

The ‘circular economy’ is gaining momentum as a concept in both academic and policy circles, and circular business models have been linked to significant economic benefits. This paper identifies barriers and enablers to adopting circular economy business practices, and presents key messages for policy-makers. It draws on input from a literature review, on discussions held in the context of the GreenEcoNet project and on an analysis of two SME circular business models.

Paper Tiger or Game-Changer? Challenges of and Opportunities for EU Engagement with the Eurasian Economic Union. Bruges Regional Integration & Global Governance Papers (BRIGG) 1/2015.

The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) started work on 1 January 2015. Considered as Russia’s response to the EU’s Eastern Partnership (EaP), it has been almost ignored in Brussels. However, with the Ukraine crisis and the deteriorating relations with Moscow, some European leaders have begun to reconsider Putin’s proposal for a region-to-region engagement. This paper tries to analyse under which conditions this could represent a long-term solution for a new European order. First, it is argued that the EEU is still far from being a credible international interlocutor. Second, Russia’s commitment to international trade rules and liberalization is questioned, whereas its geopolitical objectives seem predominant. EU engagement with the EEU in Ukraine would mean, in the short term, legitimizing Russia’s vision of a ‘bipolar Europe’ divided in spheres of influence. In the long run, prospects for inter-regional cooperation remain open, but the way to go is long and full of obstacles.

Setting the Scene: Assessing Opportunities and Threats of the European Neighbourhood

Opinions diverge to what extent the European Neighbourhood Policy has made progress towards achieving its aims, which are – as stated in the Lisbon treaty – to “establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourhoudliness, founded on EU-values”. Today it is necessary to re-think the ENP: What can the ENP achieve with its instruments and what shall it achieve? In which fields do the neighbours have specific expectations towards the ENP? And how are these expectations paralleled by what the European Union is disposed to offer?

Financial risks and opportunities in the time of climate change. Bruegel Policy Brief ISSUE 2016/02 APRIL 2016

Real economic imbalances can lead to financial crisis. The current unsustainable use of our environment is such an imbalance. Financial shocks can be triggered by either intensified environmental policies, cleantech breakthroughs (both resulting in the stranding of unsustainable assets), or the economic costs of crossing ecological boundaries (eg floods and droughts due to climate change). Financial supervisors and risk managers have so far paid little attention to this ecological dimension, allowing systemic financial imbalances resulting from ecological pressures to build up. Inattention also leads to missed economic and financial opportunities from the sustainability transition.

EU Budgetary Responses to the ‘Refugee Crisis’: Reconfiguring the Funding Landscape. CEPS Paper Liberty and Security in Europe No. 93/May 2016

This paper analyses the EU budgetary responses to the ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe. The European Commission has proposed several changes to the EU budget as well as the establishment of new funding instruments. The paper explores what the announced funding consists of, what role it plays in policy-making and what issues it generates. Throughout these budgetary responses the search for flexibility has been dominant, motivated by the need to respond more swiftly to humanitarian and operational needs. In addition, the paper argues that beyond implementation or management, the role of funding is also symbolic and communicative. In light of limited competences that are difficult to exercise, funding represents a powerful tool enabling the Commission to shape policy-making in times of crisis. At the same time, the dominant search for flexibility also challenges established funding rules and procedures. It has furthermore led to reduced space for democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament. More profoundly, EU funding for cooperation with third countries to prevent the inflow of refugees and asylum seekers has monetised questions over the responsibility for these individuals. As the EU–Turkey agreement shows, this has created a self-imposed dependence on third countries, with the risk of potentially insatiable demands for EU funding. This paper questions the proportionality and rule of law compliance of allocating funding for the implementation of this agreement. Moreover, it proposes that the Commission take steps to practically safeguard the humanitarian aid principles in the management structures of the new funding instruments, and it stresses the need for more scrutiny of the reconfigured funding landscape by the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors.