L'Union européenne face aux BRICS dans la gouvernance mondiale: Une réponse efficace? = The European Union facing the BRICS countries in world governance: an effective response? Bruges Regional Integration & Global Governance Paper 2/2014

Le présent travail se concentre sur deux principaux acteurs du monde en évolution, l'Union européenne (UE) et l'ensemble des pays BRICS, et le défi que posent collectivement ces derniers à la première sur la base de leurs poids économique et politique accrus dans le cadre de la gouvernance mondiale. On fait valoir que la doctrine d’un « multilatéralisme efficace » décrivant la position de l’UE sur la gouvernance mondiale est de plus en plus remise en cause par les BRICS dont l’approche repose sur un autre principe : celui d’un « multilatéralisme relationnel ». Afin de pouvoir analyser comment l’UE réagit à la confiance et la cohérence croissante des BRICS dans les instances internationales, ce travail examine la réponse de l’UE dans trois domaines de la gouvernance mondiale que sont le commerce, le changement climatique et la sécurité internationale. Ceci permet d’évaluer dans quelle mesure les différentes institutions européennes mettent en œuvre ce que ce travail qualifie de « réponse efficace » à la montée en puissance des BRICS. Au terme de l’analyse, cette étude s’attache à souligner que la réaction des institutions de l’UE à l'influence grandissante des BRICS sur la scène internationale ne peut être considérée comme efficace que dans le domaine du changement climatique.

Making the institutions work better and more effectively together: Priorities for the New Commission. CEPS Commentary, 1 October 2014

Philippe de Schoutheete takes as his point of departure in this Commentary the assumption that institutional treaty change cannot be a priority, although he does not exclude that it may become possible and desirable at a later period of economic growth and greater self-confidence in public opinion. In a best-case scenario, he foresees that such a window of opportunity might open towards the end of the present legislature. But in the meantime, he advises concentrating attention on adapting the institutions to make them work better and work more effectively together.

It has only just begun: EU and anticorruption institutions in Moldova. EPC Policy Brief, 1 August 2014

The Republic of Moldova recently signed the Association Agreement with the EU, closely followed by a detailed Association Agenda, which comes with concrete steps and conditionalities in the future dialogue between Chisinau and Brussels. The current paper discusses the most recent evolutions of the anticorruption institutions in Moldova, which owe a lot to EU`s influence. We pay specific attention to the justice reforms chapters in the Agenda and we conclude with recommendations for the EU to continue to pay attention to corruption in Moldova, but address it in a more coherent manner.

Differentiated Europe needs strong institutions. CHALLENGE EUROPE Issue 22 - Challenges and new beginnings: Priorities for the EU's new leadership, September 2014.

Differentiated Europe can be analysed in terms of the three meta-challenges outlined in this publication – stagnation, fragmentation and legitimacy. My argument is simple: stagnation or the prospect of it has been a catalyst for differentiation, fragmentation poses a risk of differentiation gone too far and legitimacy of differentiation is embedded on institutional cohesion and good results.

Do we need a resolution fund paid for by financial institutions? EuropEos Commentary No. 2, 17 May 2010

In this EuropEos Commentary, Stefano Micossi reviews recent efforts to build a stronger and more coherent regulatory system for financial markets and finds the idea of a resolution fund at best a distraction, and at worst a harbinger of renewed financial instability.

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.

Agricultural Credit Market Institutions: A Comparison of Selected European Countries. Factor Markets Working Paper No. 33, January 2013

This paper describes and compares the institutional framework of the agricultural credit markets in selected European countries. The institutions can be both formal (rules, regulations, authorities and actors) and informal (norms, values and relations). They also interact and in situations where the formal institutions are weak, the informal ones increase in importance. The study is based on a questionnaire sent to agricultural financial experts in selected countries. The case studies show that credit regulations are typically general, with no specific regulations for the agricultural credit market. On the other hand, several countries support agricultural credit in various forms, implying that the governments do not perceive the general credit market to function in the case of agricultural firms. In a risk assessment, the most frequent reasons for rejecting a loan application are all linked to economic performance and the situation of the farmer. Personal characteristics, such as educational level or lack of experience, were generally perceived as less influential. Another interesting point when it comes to risk assessment is that in some countries the importance of asset-based lending compared with cash flow-based lending seems to differ when concerning a first-time applicant and when there is an application to extend a loan. To get an idea of the availability of credit, the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio was calculated, and it showed remarkably low values for Poland and Slovakia. For all the countries, the calculated value was lower than what the financial experts would have expected. This might imply credit rationing in agriculture in some of the countries studied. The financial experts all judged the possibility of an agricultural firm obtaining a loan as higher than that for other small rural firms, implying that the latter are also credit-rationed.

Closing financial institutions on both sides of the Atlantic: Are there differences in approach? CEPS Commentary, 25 February 2015

In the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis both the EU and the US have implemented resolution procedures for their largest and most systemic financial institutions. This Commentary examines the main differences between the two frameworks. The EU framework allows, inter alia, action to prevent the failure of a credit institution, while the US regulatory framework requires that all systemic banks subject to resolution must be closed and resolved. The greater flexibility under the EU resolution framework allows action to be taken to preserve a credit institution without putting it through an insolvency process, which makes limiting moral hazard less obvious. Moreover, the scope of the EU framework is still narrow, since it does not allow the recovery of non-bank financial institutions, whereas the US framework does.