Eine Gabe an St. Nimmerlein? - Zur zeitlichen Dimension der Schuldenbremse

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 246-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friedrich Heinemann
Keyword(s):  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Northern European ◽  
Current Economic Crisis ◽  
Automatic Stabilizer ◽  
The Us ◽  
Income Shock ◽  
Large Heterogeneity ◽  
Automatic Stabilizers ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper analyzes the effectiveness of the tax and transfer systems in the European Union and the US to act as an automatic stabilizer in the current economic crisis. We consider two scenarios: a proportional income shock and a shock on employment which increases the rate of unemployment.We find that automatic stabilizers absorb 38 per cent of a proportional income shock in the EU, compared to 32 per cent in the US. In the case of an unemployment shock 48 per cent of the shock is absorbed in the EU, compared to 34 per cent in the US. Under the assumption that only credit constrained households adjust current spending on consumption goods to current disposable income, the cushioning of disposable income leads to a demand stabilization of 26 to 35 per cent in the EU and 19 per cent in the US. There is large heterogeneity within the EU. Automatic stabilizers in Eastern and Southern Europe are much lower than in Central and Northern European countries. With respect to income stabilization, Germany is above the European average for both scenarios. Demand stabilization in Germany is weaker because the number of liquidity constrained households is below the EU average.

Wie wirken die automatischen Stabilisatoren in der Wirtschaftskrise? Deutschland im Vergleich zu anderen EU-Staaten und den USA

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias Dolls ◽  
Clemens Fuest ◽  
Andreas Peichl
Keyword(s):  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Northern European ◽  
Current Economic Crisis ◽  
Automatic Stabilizer ◽  
The Us ◽  
Income Shock ◽  
Large Heterogeneity ◽  
Automatic Stabilizers ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper analyzes the effectiveness of the tax and transfer systems in the European Union and the US to act as an automatic stabilizer in the current economic crisis. We consider two scenarios: a proportional income shock and a shock on employment which increases the rate of unemployment. We find that automatic stabilizers absorb 38 percent of a proportional income shock in the EU, compared to 32 percent in the US. In the case of an unemployment shock 48 percent of the shock is absorbed in the EU, compared to 34 percent in the US. Under the assumption that only credit constrained households adjust current spending on consumption goods to current disposable income, the cushioning of disposable income leads to a demand stabilization of 26 to 35 percent in the EU and 19 percent in the US. There is large heterogeneity within the EU. Automatic stabilizers in Eastern and Southern Europe are much lower than in Central and Northern European countries. With respect to income stabilization, Germany is above the European average for both scenarios. Demand stabilization in Germany is weaker because the number of liquidity constrained households is below the EU average.

TTIP, CETA, and TiSA Behind Closed Doors

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panagiotis Delimatsis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Trade Negotiations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Secrecy and informality rather than transparency traditionally reign trade negotiations at the bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels. Yet, transparency ranks among the most basic desiderata in the grammar of global governance and has been regarded as positively related to legitimacy. In the EU’s case, transparent trade diplomacy is quintessential for constitutional—but also for broader political—reasons. First, even if trade matters fall within the EU’s exclusive competence, the EU executive is bound by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to inform the European Parliament, the EU co-legislator, in regular intervals. Second, transparency at an early stage is important to address public reluctance, suspicion, or even opposition regarding a particular trade deal. This chapter chronicles the quest for and turning moments relating to transparency during the EU trade negotiations with Canada (CETA); the US (TTIP), and various WTO members on services (TiSA).

scholarly journals Inequalities in the European Union—A Partial Order Analysis of the Main Indicators

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 6278
Author(s):  
Lars Carlsen ◽  
Rainer Bruggemann
Keyword(s):  
Indicator System ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Educational Aspect ◽  
The Eu

The inequality within the 27 European member states has been studied. Six indicators proclaimed by Eurostat to be the main indicators charactere the countries: (i) the relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap, (ii) the income distribution, (iii) the income share of the bottom 40% of the population, (iv) the purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita, (v) the adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita and (vi) the asylum applications by state of procedure. The resulting multi-indicator system was analyzed applying partial ordering methodology, i.e., including all indicators simultaneously without any pretreatment. The degree of inequality was studied for the years 2010, 2015 and 2019. The EU member states were partially ordered and ranked. For all three years Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, and Finland are found to be highly ranked, i.e., having rather low inequality. Bulgaria and Romania are, on the other hand, for all three years ranked low, with the highest degree of inequality. Excluding the asylum indicator, the risk-poverty-gap and the adjusted gross disposable income were found as the most important indicators. If, however, the asylum application is included, this indicator turns out as the most important for the mutual ranking of the countries. A set of additional indicators was studied disclosing the educational aspect as of major importance to achieve equality. Special partial ordering tools were applied to study the role of the single indicators, e.g., in relation to elucidate the incomparability of some countries to all other countries within the union.

scholarly journals The Trend of Scientific Productivity of Chinese, EuropeanUnion, and United States Universities and Private Companies: Does the Future Belong to E-Technology Companies?

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Mauro G. Carta ◽  
Matthias C. Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
American Universities ◽  
The Us ◽  
Parametric Statistics ◽  
The Eu

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, and 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as a sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.

European Union and China Relations in the Light of Changing Global Order

2020 ◽  
pp. 417-434
Author(s):  
Sedef Eylemer ◽  
Elif Cemre Besgur
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Relationship Context ◽  
Normative Identity ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
Strategic Perspective ◽  
Trade Wars ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU), United States (US), and China are the main global drivers of the international trade system. However, trade wars between them create tensions in the world. As the world is facing increasing neo-protectionist trade applications of the Trump administration, this chapter analyses whether a greater convergence between China and the EU is possible for protecting multilateralism through two case studies, namely (1) market conditions and discrimination, (2) cybersecurity. In this context, the chapter argues that although the US pressure has led the EU to rapprochement with China, this situation creates a dilemma for the EU in terms of the fears about the problems of alignment with the normative identity of the EU. Whereas the EU aims at regulating the global trade on a normative basis originating from its acquis, China has a more strategic perspective based upon specific relationship context. It is difficult to take a side for the EU due to its different standpoint compared to China in defending the multilateral trading system.

Government Funding of E-collaboration Research in the European Union

2009 ◽  
pp. 142-150
Author(s):  
Ned Kock ◽  
Pedro Antunes
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Information Society ◽  
National Science Foundation ◽  
Government Funding ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Government Investment ◽  
The Us ◽  
National Science ◽  
Us Government ◽  
The Eu

Government funding of e-collaboration research in both the US and EU seems to be growing. In the EU, a key initiative to promote governmental investment in e-collabo-ration research is the Collaboration@Work initiative. This initiative is one of the EU’s Information Society Technologies Directorate General’s main priorities. In the US, government investment in e-collaboration research is channeled through several gov-ernment branches and organizations, notably the National Science Foundation. There are key differences in the approaches used for government funding of e-collaboration research in the EU and US. Some of these differences are discussed here, as well as related implications.

Analysis of the US Privacy Model

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-52
Author(s):  
Francisco García Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Data Privacy ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Privacy Laws ◽  
The Us ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Eu

The creation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) constituted an enormous advance in data privacy, empowering the online consumers, who were doomed to the complete loss of control of their personal information. Although it may first seem that it only affects companies within the European Union, the regulation clearly states that every company who has businesses in the EU must be compliant with the GDPR. Other non-EU countries, like the United States, have seen the benefits of the GDPR and are already developing their own privacy laws. In this article, the most important updates introduced by the GDPR concerning US corporations will be discussed, as well as how American companies can become compliant with the regulation. Besides, a comparison between the GDPR and the state of art of privacy in the US will be presented, highlighting similarities and disparities at the national level and in states of particular interest.

The Role of Regulatory Impact Assessment in Fighting Climate Change and the Economic Downturn: A EU-US Perspective

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacopo Torriti ◽  
Ragnar Lofstedt
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regulatory Competition ◽  
Economic Downturn ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
Regulatory Impact ◽  
The Eu

In times of low economic growth and post-Copenhagen climate talks, a number of reasons for regulatory competition and cooperation between the United States and the European Union coexist. This paper discusses the role of Impact Assessment between the US and the EU on responses to the economic downturn and climate change. It is argued that, in the future, IAs will be an instrument through which it will be possible to read the level of cooperation and competition between the US and the EU, particularly on economic trade and environmental regulation.

Special safeguard tariff impacts on the Brazilian sugar exports

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cinthia Cabral da Costa ◽  
Heloisa Lee Burnquist ◽  
Joaquim José Martins Guilhoto
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Income Effects ◽  
Output Matrix ◽  
The Us ◽  
Sugar Trade ◽  
Sugar Market ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Sugar Exports

Purpose – This paper aims to present a critical analysis of special safeguards (SSGs) and a simulation of their effects on Brazilian sugar exports to countries such as the US and the European Union (EU) bloc. Design/methodology/approach – The first stage involved the identification of tariff lines for the EU and the US sugar imports from Brazil between 1995 and 2013. Next, notifications of World Trade Organization about SSGs were examined to identify the years when the measure was applied on the sugar trade by these countries. For the years when SSGs were applied, the values of these additional tariffs were calculated. This information was used, along with price elasticities, to obtain the effects of an increase in Brazilian sugar exports in the absence of SSG and also the overall impact on the Brazilian economy, using its input-output matrix. Findings – Results indicated that the estimated value of the direct, indirect and income effects of SSG tariffs on Brazilian sugar exports to the EU and the US markets through the period 1995 to 2013 could amount to BRL 22 billion in terms of the exporting country GDP. This suggests that this policy can be highly perverse, as it translates into lower domestic production for both, the exporting and the importing countries. This issue is relevant for discussions on the global sugar market, given the facts that it is one of the markets which have been most distorted by protectionism. Originality/value – This issue is relevant for discussions on the global sugar market, given the facts that it is one of the markets which have been most distorted by protectionism.

INNOVATION, PATENTS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

2007 ◽  
Vol 11 (02) ◽  
pp. 279-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
RIFAT A. ATUN ◽  
IAN HARVEY ◽  
JOFF WILD
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
European Union ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Enterprise Value ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Knowledge Based Economy ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Empirical evidence demonstrates the value of intellectual property (IP) in creating economic growth, enhancing productivity and profitability, and increasing enterprise value. Research and Development (R&D) intensive industries, such as the life sciences, where patents are critical to competition, need an enabling environment to institutionalise innovation and IP generation and reward investments in IP. The US has approached IP strategically and created an IP infrastructure. Japan aims to develop into an "IP nation". China has an increasingly well-developed IP system. In contrast, the European Union (EU), which aims to become the world's leading knowledge-based economy, has a fragmented and expensive system of national patents. It lacks an environment which values investment in IP generation and management. Until recently, the EU enjoyed global competitive advantage in the life sciences, but this advantage has been lost. To regain this competitive advantage the EU must invest substantially in R&D, IP generation and commercialisation of these outputs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document