What can the Better Regulation Commissioner do for the EU? CEPS Commentary, 29 September 2014

This commentary welcomes the creation and prominence given by President Juncker to the new post of First Vice-President in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights as among the most interesting of several novelties contained in the proposed Commission and overdue. After all, as the authors point out, better regulation has been underpinning the Commission’s core business, namely, EU regulation, for over a decade. At the same time, however, they warn that Commissioner-designate Frans Timmermans is receiving an extremely challenging mandate which pose many difficulties to overcome

Policy-Making in the EU: Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Reform. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2009

This report is the product of a joint project initiated by the Centre for European Policy Studies and the Swedish Confederation of Enterprise. Three expert groups of academics, policy-makers, business representatives and other stakeholders were formed to analyse the major issues and challenges facing the European Union today and to put forward recommendations for reform that can realistically be implemented in the short and medium term. The expert groups focused on EU Decision-Making, Better Regulation and Implementation & Subsidiarity

Ex post evaluation of the MAP 2001-2005 initiative and suggestions for the CIP 2007-2013

In the EU25, some 23 million SMEs represent 99% of all enterprises, provide 75 million jobs and make a 55% contribution towards the creation of wealth: in addition, one third of employees and over two thirds of private-sector employees in Europe work in SMEs. Given their outstanding strategic importance, the European Commission has launched several policies to promote the development of SMEs, their access to finance and investment in R&D and innovation. A prominent role among EU programmes targeting SMEs is played by the Multi-Annual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship 2001-2005 (MAP), funded by Community budget and co-financing instruments. The MAP has been extended until the end of 2006 to create a bridge with the forthcoming Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), a very ambitious project that will run from 2007 to 2013. Against this background, the Budgetary Committee of the European Parliament commissioned CEPS to evaluate the output of the MAP over the period 2000-2005 in terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and utility, by highlighting the value for money of the programmes and related actions, and emphasising whether the funds dedicated to their implementation have produced the expected quantitative and qualitative effects. In this report, CEPS was also asked to provide some orientations for future-generation programmes, namely the CIP. The authors focus in particular on the actions undertaken between 2001 and 2006, as they provide more relevant and consistent information on the output of the MAP initiative and, in turn, better orientation for the forthcoming CIP

The Impact of TTIP: The underlying economic model and comparisons. CEPS Special Report No. 93/13 October 2014. [TTIP Series No. 1]

What are the economic and other impacts of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership? At the request of the European Parliament, CEPS has provided an appraisal of the TTIP Impact Assessment carried out by the European Commission, with special elaboration of the underlying economic model. The methodology applied by the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) for this economic modelling is analysed in depth, together with the assumptions used to make TTIP amenable to an economic appraisal. The research paper also compares the IA on TTIP with selected previous empirical economic assessments of EU trade agreements and with a set of alternative studies on TTIP itself. In reading our findings, two central caveats should be kept in mind that affect any analysis of the CGE model included in the European Commission’s Impact Assessment. First, TTIP is a rather unusual bilateral trade agreement; and second, TTIP is so wide-ranging that an alternative approach, such as the so-called ‘partial’ (equilibrium) approach – already a second-best solution – would be totally inappropriate to the case under examination

Policy Coherence for Development in the EU Council: Strategies for the Way Forward. CEPS Paperbacks. July 2006

In recognition of the fact that EU policies in non-development areas, such as trade, energy and migration, can also profoundly affect the poor in developing countries, the EU has affirmed ‘Policy Coherence for Development’ as an important principle for achieving more effective development cooperation. This new CEPS study analyses whether policy-making processes in the EU Council provide sufficient scope for development inputs to be made in 12 key policy areas: trade, environment, climate change, security, agriculture, fisheries, social dimension of globalisation, employment and decent work, migration, research and innovation, information society, transport and energy. The study also includes coverage of the policy-making processes in the European Commission as it initiates and defends most of the policies being discussed in the EU Council. Its findings point to the highly segregated character of EU policy-making and provide interesting insights into the internal challenges the EU will need to address in order to fulfil its goal of achieving greater coherency in its (external) policy-making. To strengthen the potential for PCD the study suggests six proposals for structural reform as well as a set of specific recommendations

Priorities for the Juncker Commission: Policy recommendations and advice from the research team at CEPS. CEPS Special Report No. 92, 22 October 2014

In the months leading up to his nomination as President of the European Commission by the European Council in June 2014 through to his approval by the European Parliament in mid-July and finally his approval at a second special summit in August, CEPS’ researchers have closely followed the travails of Jean-Claude Juncker. We have also carefully studied his fundamental restructuring of the College in re-grouping commissioners around seven project teams, each headed by a vice-president. In our view, these changes promise to improve internal coordination, policy-making and transparency of rule-making and hopefully will reduce the personalisation of portfolios. This Special Report brings together under a single cover a series of 14 separate commentaries prepared by senior CEPS researchers, offering their assessment of these profound changes underway and their policy advice to the new commissioners from the perspective of their field of specialisation

REACH: A killer whale for SMEs? CEPS Policy Brief No. 307, 9 December 2013

REACH is a very demanding system for any business either large or small, yet right from the start one of the more serious concerns was whether and how SMEs could cope with the Regulation. After all, some 27,600 companies in EU chemistry are SMEs (95% of all firms). Seven years down the line, many of these fears are materialising. Assuming no significant changes are introduced to REACH, this paper suggests the following recommendations: Above all, we strongly encourage SMEs to start early and develop a strategy for REACH compliance well before 2018. Address the potential competition law implications of current SIEF arrangements, e.g. through a Guidance document from DG Competition by 2014 (in time for 2018) Facilitate the exchange of information along the value chain by adopting pragmatic approach to the content and format of Safety Data Sheets. More can be done on the IT front as well, for instance by developing tools that generate compliant Safety Data Sheets. Improve the communication of REACH and its intended goals, that is, the health and environmental benefits, to the wider public. SMEs regret the unawareness of the public in the light of the enormous efforts they have to undertake. In the event of a later review of REACH, the logic should be risk-based rather than hazard-based

Ex post evaluation of the MAP 2001-2005 initiative and suggestions for the CIP 2007-2013. Study commissioned by the Budget Committee of the European Parliament 31 August 2006. CEPS Special Reports, November 2006

In the EU25, some 23 million SMEs represent 99% of all enterprises, provide 75 million jobs and make a 55% contribution towards the creation of wealth: in addition, one third of employees and over two thirds of private-sector employees in Europe work in SMEs. Given their outstanding strategic importance, the European Commission has launched several policies to promote the development of SMEs, their access to finance and investment in R&D and innovation. A prominent role among EU programmes targeting SMEs is played by the Multi-Annual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship 2001-2005 (MAP), funded by Community budget and co-financing instruments. The MAP has been extended until the end of 2006 to create a bridge with the forthcoming Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), a very ambitious project that will run from 2007 to 2013. Against this background, the Budgetary Committee of the European Parliament commissioned CEPS to evaluate the output of the MAP over the period 2000-2005 in terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and utility, by highlighting the value for money of the programmes and related actions, and emphasising whether the funds dedicated to their implementation have produced the expected quantitative and qualitative effects. In this report, CEPS was also asked to provide some orientations for future-generation programmes, namely the CIP. The authors focus in particular on the actions undertaken between 2001 and 2006, as they provide more relevant and consistent information on the output of the MAP initiative and, in turn, better orientation for the forthcoming CIP

Regulatory Quality in the European Commission and the UK: Old questions and new findings. CEPS Working Document No. 362, January 2012

This paper examines the quality of impact assessments in the European Commission and the United Kingdom for the period 2005-2010. We coded 477 impact assessments for the UK and 251 for the European Commission, using a detailed scorecard - adjusted to reduce the bias evidenced by previous usages of this instrument. The findings suggest that impact assessment is not merely a perfunctory activity in the European Union and the UK. Quality has improved steadily over the years, arguably as a result of learning and regulatory oversight. The UK and the European Commission are strikingly similar on a number of impact assessment dimensions (such as economic analysis and identification of costs and benefits). The impact assessments of the European Commission seem to pay more attention to social and environmental aspects, however. The conclusions reflect on the implications of our findings for current policy discussions on regulatory quality and the role of regulatory oversight bodies