Study supporting the interim evaluation of the innovation principle. Final Report November 2019

The European Commission has recognised the importance of a more innovation- oriented EU acquis, gradually exploring the ways in which EU rules can support innovation. The ‘innovation principle’ was introduced to ensure that whenever policy is developed, the impact on innovation is fully assessed. However, as further discussed in this Study, the exact contours of the innovation principle have been shaped very gradually within the context of the EU better regulation agenda: originally advocated by industry in the context of the precautionary principle, the innovation principle has gradually been given a more articulate and consistent role, which aims at complementing the precautionary principle by increasing the salience of impacts on innovation during all phases of the policy cycle. This Study presents an evaluation of the current implementation of the innovation principle, limited to two of its three components, i.e. the Research and Innovation Tool included in the Better Regulation Toolbox, and the innovation deals. As a preliminary caveat, it is important to recall that the implementation of the innovation principle is still in its infancy, and thus the Study only represents a very early assessment of the extent to which the innovation principle is being correctly implemented, and whether changes would be required to make the principle more effective and useful in the context of the EU better regulation agenda. The main finding is that the innovation principle has the potential to contribute to the quality and future-proof nature of EU policy, but that significant changes and effort will be needed for this potential to fully materialise. The most evident areas for improvement are related to the lack of a clear legal basis, the lack of a widely acknowledged definition, the lack of awareness among EU officials and stakeholders, and the lack of adequate skills among those that are called to implement the innovation principle. As a result of these problems, the impact of the innovation principle on the innovation-friendliness of the EU acquis has been limited so far. The Commission should clarify in official documents that the Innovation principle does not entail a de- regulatory approach, and is not incompatible with the precautionary principle: this would also help to have the principle fully recognised and endorsed by all EU institutions, as well as by civil society, often concerned with the possible anti-regulatory narrative around the innovation principle in stakeholder discussions. Apart from clarifications, and further dissemination and training, major improvements are possible in the near future, especially if the innovation principle is brought fully in line with the evolving data-driven nature of digital innovation and provides more guidance to the Commission on how to design experimental regulation, including inter alia so-called ‘regulatory sandboxes’. Finally, the Commission should ensure that the innovation principle is given prominence with the transition to the Horizon Europe programme, in particular due to the anticipated launch of ‘missions’ in key domains

Chronicle of a Pandemic Foretold. CEPS Policy Insights No 2020-05 / March 2020

In just a few weeks, COVID-19 appeared in China and quickly spread to the rest of the world, including Europe and the United States. Many have rushed to describe the outbreak as a ‘black swan’ – an unpredictable event with extremely severe consequences. However, COVID-19 was not only predictable ex post: it was amply predicted ex ante. This allows us to draw some preliminary lessons: • First, economic policy will need to shift from its current focus on efficiency, towards a greater emphasis on resilience and sustainability. • Second, a more centralised governance to address health emergencies is needed. • Third, Europe should create a centre for the prevention of large-scale risks. • Fourth, digital technologies, if handled with care, can be an important part of both a mitigation and a response strategy. • Fifth, Europe should improve its science advice and communication functions. Finally, there are many ways to pursue enhanced resilience and responsiveness, but not all of them are compatible with sustainability and democratic values. The challenge is to find an adequate policy mix, which safeguards individual rights and liberties, protects the economy, and at the same time strengthens government preparedness for cases of epidemics and pandemics

Antitrust, Regulation and the Neutrality Trap: A plea for a smart, evidence-based internet policy. CEPS Special Report No. 104/April 2015

When they look at Internet policy, EU policymakers seem mesmerised, if not bewitched, by the word ‘neutrality’. Originally confined to the infrastructure layer, today the neutrality rhetoric is being expanded to multi-sided platforms such as search engines and more generally online intermediaries. Policies for search neutrality and platform neutrality are invoked to pursue a variety of policy objectives, encompassing competition, consumer protection, privacy and media pluralism. This paper analyses this emerging debate and comes to a number of conclusions. First, mandating net neutrality at the infrastructure layer might have some merit, but it certainly would not make the Internet neutral. Second, since most of the objectives initially associated with network neutrality cannot be realistically achieved by such a rule, the case for network neutrality legislation would have to stand on different grounds. Third, the fact that the Internet is not neutral is mostly a good thing for end users, who benefit from intermediaries that provide them with a selection of the over-abundant information available on the Web. Fourth, search neutrality and platform neutrality are fundamentally flawed principles that contradict the economics of the Internet. Fifth, neutrality is a very poor and ineffective recipe for media pluralism, and as such should not be invoked as the basis of future media policy. All these conclusions have important consequences for the debate on the future EU policy for the Digital Single Market

Searching for harm or harming search? A look at the European Commission\u2019s antitrust investigation against Google

As the European Commission\u2019s antitrust investigation against Google approaches its final stages, its contours and likely outcome remain obscure and blurred by a plethora of non antitrust-related arguments. At the same time, the initial focus on search neutrality as an antitrust principle seems to have been abandoned by the European Commission, in favour of a more standard allegation of \u2018exclusionary abuse\u2019, likely to generate anticompetitive foreclosure of Google\u2019s rivals. This paper discusses search neutrality as an antitrust principle, and then comments on the current investigation based on publicly available information. The paper provides a critical assessment of the likely tests that will be used for the definition of the relevant product market, the criteria for the finding of dominance, the anticompetitive foreclosure test and the possible remedies that the European Commission might choose. Overall, and regardless of the outcome of the Google case, the paper argues that the current treatment of exclusionary abuses in Internet markets is in urgent need of a number of important clarifications, and has been in this condition for more than a decade. The hope is that the European Commission will resist the temptation to imbue the antitrust case with an emphasis and meaning that have nothing to do with antitrust (from industrial policy motives to privacy, copyright or media law arguments) and that, on the contrary, the Commission will devote its efforts to sharpening its understanding of dynamic competition in cyberspace, and the tools that should be applied in the analysis of these peculiar, fast-changing and often elusive settings

Antitrust on the ‘G string’: What’s behind the Commission’s investigations of Google and Gazprom? CEPS Commentary, 15 June 2015

The past few weeks have marked a shift of gear in EU antitrust enforcement. First, the new European Commissioner for Competition Margarethe Vestager announced on April 15th that the Commission had sent a Statement of Objections to Google, arguing that the giant IT company abused its dominant position in the “general Internet search” market and also in the market for mobile operating systems, apps and services. Exactly one week later, she also sent a Statement of Objections to Gazprom for having created artificial barriers to trade between certain EU countries, preventing gas flows and competition across national borders and charging unfair prices in five Central and Eastern European countries. It is indeed hard to recall any other time in which two investigations of this size – both potentially leading to billions of euros of fines – have been launched almost simultaneously

How can Sustainable Development Goals be ‘mainstreamed’ in the EU’s Better Regulation Agenda? CEPS Policy Insights No 2017/12, March 2017

The European Commission recently announced its intention to mainstream the Sustainable Development Goals in its policy process, as part of its approach to implement the 2030 Agenda. This explicitly involves the EU's better regulation agenda, but the current tools and methods used in both ex ante impact assessment and ex post policy evaluation would need to be adapted to link better regulation with SDGs more effectively. More generally, this would also mean that the better regulation agenda becomes an instrument for policy coherence in EU public policy, and not only an instrument for efficiency. In this paper, the author reflects on the changes that would be needed in governance and better regulation methods, and in the European Semester and Cohesion policy. He proposes a five-phase transition towards a policy process that is fully geared to sustainable development

When the Nobel Prize goes pop Richard Thaler and the uncertain future of nudge. CEPS Commentary, October 2017

Richard Thaler’s contribution to behavioural economics has been seminal and path-breaking, but the actual impact of nudging has remained limited to specific applications, and appears particularly questionable in today’s digital economy

Too good to be true? A quick assessment of the EC’s new Better Regulation Package. CEPS Special Report No. 108/May 2015

On 19 May 2015, the European Commission published a very comprehensive, ambitious and innovative Better Regulation package, which contains new guidelines on various phases of the policy cycle and various documents setting out the rules and functioning of entirely new consultation platforms and a new body in charge of regulatory scrutiny. This Special Report presents some initial impressions on the content of this remarkable set of new documents, which will shape the way in which EU policies will be prepared, shaped, monitored and evaluated in the years to come