Aufbruch in ein neues Kapitel bei der Angleichung der Lebensbedingungen in Europa

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Werner Hoyer ◽  
Markus Berndt
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Banking Union ◽  
Market Forces ◽  
Market Failures ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Success Story ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
Private Investors ◽  
The Eu

AbstractAll in all, EU Cohesion policy has been a success. It has facilitated growth and jobs in less developed areas, contributing to their prosperity. However, convergence has slowed down significantly during the crisis. This puts even more pressure on safeguarding that cohesion policy generates optimal results to ensure lasting economic and social cohesion. Room for improvement has been identified. The delivery mechanisms can be improved; its territorial dimension strengthened; and its focus more firmly directed at supporting a resource-efficient economy, research, development and innovation.Even more important, the economic crisis in the EU has underscored the need for creating pan-European institutions, like the banking union, to complete the integration of financial markets. The recent substantial reforms of the EU’s economic architecture are aimed at creating an unprecedented level of integration that will allow private capital to flow more easily and more responsibly to the most productive and growth-enhancing investments in convergence regions. The unleashing of these market forces, combined with a reformed cohesion policy to efficiently address market failures where they exist, carries the potential to initiate a new success story in the convergence of living conditions in the EU.The EIB is committed to play an important role in this effort. It has already integrated the new smart and sustainable orientations of the Structural Funds and will strive to facilitate better alignment between its sector and regional objectives. Expanding and deepening the nature and scope of financial and non-financial instruments developed jointly with the European Commission will further improve the leverage effect of EU funding and help attract private investors.

EU Regionalförderung: Reformen für die nächste Finanzperiode

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Absorptive Capacity ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Banking Union ◽  
Market Failures ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Capacity Level ◽  
Private Investors ◽  
Economic Constraints ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn their paper Peter Egger and Maximilian von Ehrlich summarize recent research on the effects of European regional policy. Results point to a positive effect of this policy on average. One Euro spent even tends to generate more than one Euro in return in terms of GDP. However, the response varies drastically across recipient regions. First of all, there is evidence of existence of an optimum funding ratio (funds allocated relative to recipient GDP) where one Euro invested generates one Euro of return. About 36 percent of the regions receive higher funding than that, where one Euro generates less than one Euro of return (and, eventually, no return at all). Second, there is evidence of a bigger return on investment in regions with higher absorptive capacity level - measured by human capital endowments and the quality of recipient institutions. Insufficient levels of absorptive capacity lead to a wash of the Union’s transfers. About 70 percent of the regions exhibit such an insufficient level of absorptive capacity.Friedrich Heinemann analyzes both, the reform needs and reform obstacles of EU cohesion spending. Although the empirical evidence is unable to substantiate an European added value, structural funds continue to absorb an increasing amount of resources. The analysis reveals several shortcomings of this policy: First, EU regional programs have neglected institutional constraints on the side of recipient countries and regions. Second, an inflation of policy objectives makes a clear performance measurement increasingly impossible. And third, through the inclusion of rich regions into its programs, cohesion spending has lost its focus. To tackle these shortcomings, a comprehensive reform package is recommended which includes new incentives on the financing side of the EU budget. Only increasing regional co-financing or other financing innovations can reduce disincentives from common pool-financing and overcome reform resistance. Without any such financing side reforms, merely some incremental reforms are consistent with political-economic constraints, he states.Werner Hoyer and Markus Brandt point out, that all in all, EU Cohesion policy has been a success. It has facilitated growth and jobs in less developed areas, contributing to their prosperity. However, convergence has slowed down significantly during the crisis. This puts even more pressure on safeguarding that cohesion policy generates optimal results to ensure lasting economic and social cohesion. Room for improvement has been identified. The delivery mechanisms can be improved; its territorial dimension strengthened; and its focus more firmly directed at supporting a resourceefficient economy, research, development and innovation.Even more important, the economic crisis in the EU has underscored the need for creating pan-European institutions, like the banking union, to complete the integration of financial markets. The recent substantial reforms of the EU’s economic architecture are aimed at creating an unprecedented level of integration that will allow private capital to flow more easily and more responsibly to the most productive and growth-enhancing investments in convergence regions. The unleashing of these market forces, combined with a reformed cohesion policy to efficiently address market failures where they exist, carries the potential to initiate a new success story in the convergence of living conditions in the EU.They emphasize that the EIB is committed to play an important role in this effort. It has already integrated the new smart and sustainable orientations of the Structural Funds and will strive to facilitate better alignment between its sector and regional objectives. Expanding and deepening the nature and scope of financial and non-financial instruments developed jointly with the European Commission will further improve the leverage effect of EU funding and help attract private investors.

scholarly journals Do Citizens Support Cohesion Policy? Measuring European support for redistribution within the EU and its correlates

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. 11-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Charron
Keyword(s):  
Economic Integration ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Demographic Groups ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Policy Tool ◽  
State Of The Union ◽  
Key Policy ◽  
The Eu

As the European Union enters into the next decade, its leaders seemingly strive towards more future integration rather than less, despite the recent setback of Brexit and the rise of anti-EU populist parties.  In his state of the Union in 2018, Jean Claude Junker emphasized several ways forward - ‘European solidarity’, ‘rejection of exaggerated nationalism’, and support for ‘balanced migration reform’.  Yet he did not mention one key policy tool for achieving a closer Union – Cohesion Policy and the Structural Funds, which are “the only real, significant redistributive mechanism in the EU…” (Fratesi 2017) and consistently constitute the second largest item in the EU’s budget.  As Cohesion policy essentially redistributes resources from wealthier EU countries to poorer EU regions, creating winners (net recipients) and losers (net donors), it has been a target in anti-EU rhetoric, including in the lead up to Brexit.  Despite elite commentary, we know surprisingly little about what EU citizens think of the rationale behind the policy of Cohesion – e.g. economic redistribution within the EU.  As part of the PERCEIVE Horizon2020 project, we launched a unique survey to investigate how citizens feel about economic integration within the Union, where 17,200 citizens were interviewed.  In this paper, we show how we measure support for the policy, the results as well as a host of correlates. Our analysis shows the variation in citizens’ support for EU Cohesion policy between countries, how support varies between demographic groups, as well as the extent to which support is correlated with utilitarian and ideational factors as well as cue taking.  Implications for future developments of this policy are discussed.  

scholarly journals Not-So-Big and Big Credit Data Between Traditional Consumer Finance, FinTechs, and the Banking Union: Old and New Challenges in an Enduring EU Policy and Legal Conundrum

Global Jurist ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Ferretti
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Business Models ◽  
National Level ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Banking Union ◽  
Prudential Supervision ◽  
Consumer Data ◽  
Credit Data ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This paper discusses the role and usage of traditional and non-traditional consumer data in the retail financial markets of the European Union in the context of the economic theories, policies, and law within which they work. Across Europe there is no common practice of using the credit data of consumers, which can be exploited for several purposes. Traditionally, they are used by the lending industry as a risk-management tool to underwrite borrowing decisions or price risks, but they can also be used as a practice of creditworthiness assessment. In some Member States, consumer data are part of a broader information centralisation system for the prudential supervision of banks and the financial system as a whole. Within this already complex picture, emerging technologies and the processing of new generations of personal data are starting to give way to new business models that can transform retail financial markets (Fintechs). Whatever the function the data perform, their source, type, breath, and depth differ greatly from country to country. Unlike for the harmonisation of EU rules on credit to consumers for the creation of the internal market, the underlying consumer data infrastructure remains fragmented at national level, failing to achieve univocal, common, or defined policy objectives under a harmonised legal framework. Likewise, the establishment of the Banking Union and the prudential supervision of the Euro-area demand standardisation and convergence of the data used to measure debt levels, arrears, and delinquencies. The many functions and different usages of credit data suggest that the policy goals to be achieved should inform the design and structure of the databases, as well as the role, legal, and institutional framework of the organisations managing the data system (the Data Brokers). This is also because fundamental rights and consumer protection concerns arise from the dissemination and sharing of traditional and non-traditional data, as well as from their expanding uses. This is an area of the EU internal market that demands the attention of the EU legislator without further delays.

scholarly journals EU Cohesion Policy Performance: Measures and Regional Variation

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. 27-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosina Moreno
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Performance Measures ◽  
Regional Variation ◽  
Absorption Capacity ◽  
Regional Data ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Policy Performance ◽  
The Eu

The main objective of this paper is to describe the performance of the EU Cohesion Policy in terms of EU funds effectiveness. The effectiveness in the absorption of funds is a permanent challenge for EU member states, and therefore, the analysis of the absorption capacity is needed in its different spheres: its scope, its determinants and its effects. The present paper deals with the first one, the scope of the absorption of EU resources and focus on an aspect that has been widely forgotten so far: the regional variation in the absorption of the structural funds. Based on EU regional aggregate data on funds commitment and absorption provided by the European Commission for the Operating Program 2007-2013 at the NUTS2 level, we observe thatfull absorption was more the exception than the rule, with an important regional variation. In addition, we offer a discussion on how lack of timely available regional data on EU fund payments hinders the analysis of the effectiveness of the regional absorption of the funds.

Private Regulation and Legal Integration: The European Example

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Cafaggi ◽  
Agnieszka Janczuk
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Governance Structure ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Market Failures ◽  
Global Level ◽  
Private Regulation ◽  
Interest Representation ◽  
The Common ◽  
Legal Integration ◽  
The Eu

Private regulation has become a highly debated phenomenon. Previous research has focused mostly on the effectiveness, legitimacy, and governance structure of private regulators at the global level. Few existing analyses have focused on private regulation at the European level, where only questions of interest representation have attracted attention. Analyses of the contribution of private regulation to the process of European legal integration, in particular, are lacking. We seek to fill this gap. From private rules for product safety and for financial markets, such as the Single Euro Payments Area standards, to private rules governing the professions, we observe that private regulation has facilitated and accelerated European legal integration. We argue that in some cases this effect was anticipated, especially by the European Commission, and in those cases the intended effect on European legal integration at least partly explains the rise of private regulation. I other cases, it was an incidental by-product of attempts to address market failures or achieve network legitimacy. In the conclusion, we turn to questions of accountability and legitimacy raised by the increasing importance of private regulators in the Common Market of the EU. Although the EU lacks a body of rules that imposes democratic controls on private regulators, we identify components of European law that can be used as control mechanisms.

scholarly journals Sustainable Growth, Competitiveness and Employment

2007 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 259-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Bachtler ◽  
Irene McMaster
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Sustainable Growth ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Member States ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Strategic Approach ◽  
Innovation Knowledge ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Lisbon Agenda

AbstractThe relaunched “growth and jobs” agenda of the EU is reflected in the Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion. These have influenced the content of the new Structural Funds programmes, with increased importance accorded to innovation, knowledge and entrepreneurship. There is evidence of a more strategic approach to economic development and a stronger prioritisation of support. Whether this makes a difference to the Lisbon agenda depends on how the programme objectives are implemented as well as the broader regulatory and other changes required in National Reform Programmes. Convincing Member States of the importance of Cohesion policy also depends on the impact of the Funds being identifiable.

scholarly journals Allocation of structural funds before and after the brexit: An exercise in the economics of cake-sharing

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 69-71
Author(s):  
Wim Heijman
Keyword(s):  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Allocation Model ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Jel Code ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

What impact has the Brexit on the allocation of money from the structural funds? As the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget, the budget for Structural and Cohesion Policy will shrink. This will have an impact on the allocations of the structural funds to the remaining members of the EU. In order to estimate the allocation of the structural funds to the remaining EU members an allocation model is developed in this article. It appears that the model results do not only show the sharing of the cake, but also the size of it. JEL Code: F00, Q00

scholarly journals The main achievements of the EU structural funds 2007–2013 in the EU member states: efficiency analysis of transport sector

Equilibrium ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukáš Melecký
Keyword(s):  
Efficiency Analysis ◽  
Lower Amount ◽  
Transport Sector ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Member States ◽  
Development Fund ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Eu Structural Funds ◽  
The Eu

Research background: The European Union currently provides financial support to the Member States through various financial tools from European Structural and Investment Funds 2014–2020, and previously from the EU Structural Funds. In both terminologies, the funds represent the main instrument of EU Cohesion Policy to sustain territorial development, to increase competitiveness and to eliminate regional disparities. The overall impact of EU Funds depends on the structure of funding and absorption capacity of the country. Purpose of the article: The efficiency of funding across the EU Member States is a fundamental issue for EU development as a whole. The Author considers deter-mining the efficiency of EU Funds as an issue of high importance, and therefore this paper provides a contribution to the debate on the role of EU Cohesion Policy in the Member States. The paper focuses on territorial effects of relevant EU Funds in programming period 2007–2013 in infrastructure through efficiency analysis. Methods: Efficiency analysis is based on data at the country level, originating from ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007–2013 and representing the input and output variables to analyse whether the goal of fostering growth in the target countries have been achieved with the funds provided, and whether or not more resources generated stronger growth effects in transport accessibility. The paper deals with comparative cross-country analysis, descriptive analysis of dataset and multiple-criteria approach of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in the form of output-oriented BCC VRS model of efficiency and output-oriented APM VRS subsequently model of super-efficiency. Findings & Value added: The paper aims to test the factors of two inputs and five outputs, trying to elucidate the differences obtained by the Member States in effective use of the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund in the transport sector. The paper determines if the countries have been more efficient in increasing their levels of competitive advantages linked with transport. Preliminary results reveal that most countries with a lower amount of funding achieve higher efficiency, especially countries in a group of so-called “old EU Member States”, i.e. group EU15.

scholarly journals Preparation of Serbia for implementation of Chapter 22 in the field of regional policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-143
Author(s):  
Sonja Živojinović
Keyword(s):  
Financial Management ◽  
Regional Policy ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Member States ◽  
Structural Funds ◽  
Administrative Capacity ◽  
Eu Structural Funds ◽  
Main Instrument ◽  
The Eu

Regional policy is the EU's main instrument for investing in sustainable and inclusive economic growth. Member States are responsible for its implementation, which requires adequate administrative capacity and sound financial management. When Serbia becomes a member of the EU, it will have at its disposal many times more funds from the EU structural funds than the ones it currently receives, and for the use of which it must prepare before joining the Union. Member States must respect EU law when selecting and implementing projects, in areas related to regional policy and Structural Instruments. Member States must also establish the institutional framework, organizational arrangements and necessary organizational arrangements to prepare supporting documents. This implies the establishment of all structures at the national and regional level required by EU regulations and standards. This Chapter 22 has a double meaning: it is important in itself, because through the negotiations on this Chapter it must be proven that we are in the mood to establish good and sufficient capacities for the use of EU Cohesion Policy. At the same time, Serbia is thus preparing to be an equal participant in the Union's Cohesion Policy, as well as all other member states.

Euro Crisis in a Nutshell

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Randall Henning
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
European Central Bank ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Banking Union ◽  
Euro Crisis ◽  
European Central ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
Modus Vivendi ◽  
The International Monetary Fund ◽  
Country Specific

This chapter provides an overview of the origins and evolution of the euro crisis as a whole, as the backdrop to examining the country-specific financial rescue programs. It reviews the economics of the crisis and governments’ loss of access to financial markets during the acute phase, 2010–13. The chapter addresses the overall response to the crisis on the part of the European institutions and euro-area member states, best characterized as “muddling through.” The response nonetheless bought time for the introduction of unconventional monetary policy on the part of the European Central Bank and of new financial facilities and steps toward banking union on the part of governments. The chapter then reviews the design of the programs for countries in Central and Eastern Europe, especially for Latvia, over which the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund clashed strongly. The two institutions began to work out their modus vivendi during these early programs, precursors to the euro crisis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document