Search

Begin New Search Topic European Union Author Vanika Sharma

1. The Future of European Digital Competitiveness

Author:
Oscar Guinea and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi’s recent report on Europe’s competitiveness lays bare the negative effects of overregulation in the EU economy and the underperformance of its digital sector. However, Draghi failed to draw connections between these two phenomena. The future of Europe’s competitiveness is inextricably linked to the future of its digital economy. Unfortunately, the economic contribution of Europe’s Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector remains significantly smaller than that of the US ICT sector to the US economy. There are well-known reasons behind this divergence. Chief among them is the lack of sufficient investment in Europe’s intangible and tangible assets. Regulation, particularly those regulations governing the digital economy, has emerged as a key factor that restricts Europe’s usage of digital technologies and hinders subsequent productivity growth. The EU now has nearly 100 tech-focused laws, comprising thousands of pages, provisions, and restrictions. This must change. The EU should develop a joint plan for digitalisation and competitiveness. This plan should build upon Europe’s comparative advantages: openness, strong institutions, the rule of law, robust intellectual property protections, and high levels of human capital. Above all, the EU must recognise that, while protecting consumer rights, EU policies and regulations must also prioritise the competitiveness of Europe’s ICT sector and promote the widespread adoption of digital technologies across the entire EU economy.
Topic:
Markets, European Union, Digital Economy, and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

2. The Impact of Increased Mass Litigation in Europe

Author:
Fredrik Erixon, Oscar Guinea, Dyuti Pandya, Vanika Sharma, Elena Sisto, Oscar du Roy, Renata Zilli, and Philipp Lamprecht
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to better understand the growth of mass litigation in the European Union (EU) and its economic consequences. European authorities have long encouraged consumers to seek redress through private litigation in European competition law and, more recently, they have shifted their focus towards collective actions in a broad range of areas, including data privacy and product liability. Facilitating access to justice through collective actions is not a cost-free option. Unfortunately, there is a lack of economic analysis on the consequences of an increase in collective action cases in the EU. It is crucial to understand the economic consequences of a “mixed regime” – that is, a regime based on both ex-ante public enforcement through regulation and ex-post enforcement through private litigation. The combination of these two enforcement models raises questions about how the system is intended to work together and what the consequences might be for the economy. This study examines the economic implications of these developments in the EU.
Topic:
Law, European Union, Regulation, Regional Economy, and Litigation
Political Geography:
Europe

3. Boosting Efficiency and Quality in EU Public Services: The Need for a European Multi-Cloud-First Strategy

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Andrea Dugo, Dyuti Pandya, Vanika Sharma, and Elena Sito
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
EU governments have an unprecedented opportunity to unlock up to EUR 450 billion in annual fiscal savings by modernising public services through advanced multi-cloud solutions, cloud-based AI, and other deep tech innovations. As estimated in this study, this figure highlights the transformative impact of digitised government services – not only in improving service quality and operational efficiency but also in generating substantial fiscal gains that would enhance Europe’s economic competitiveness. Multi-cloud adoption is not merely an infrastructure choice but a strategic enabler of modern, agile, and citizen-focused public services. To fully capitalise on cloud adoption, EU governments should embrace a multi-cloud strategy that integrates different public cloud providers and, where necessary, also incorporates sovereign or private cloud environments. Cloud services come in many forms, including Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). Each model offers unique value propositions such as ease of use, rapid security updates, scalability, and the capacity to integrate novel technological features, such as AI applications, seamlessly.
Topic:
European Union, Digital Economy, and Cloud Computing
Political Geography:
Europe

4. EU Export of Regulatory Overreach: The Case of the Digital Markets Act (DMA)

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Dyuti Pandya, and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) exemplifies the “Brussels Effect,” extending the EU’s regulatory influence beyond its borders and shaping global digital competition policies. While intended to curb the market power of large technology platforms and promote fair competition, its broad, rigid, and pre-emptive approach risks stifling technological development, deterring investment, and creating legal uncertainty, particularly in emerging markets still building digital infrastructure and seeking to attract foreign investment. Large technology firms play a pivotal role in global economic development, driving innovation, infrastructure upgrading, and consumer welfare. However, increasing regulatory scrutiny, particularly under DMA-like frameworks, could inadvertently harm the very markets they help grow by imposing compliance burdens that hinder business expansion and technology diffusion. Countries with weaker institutions and regulatory capacity – such as India, Brazil, South Africa, and other emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) like Indonesia – could face greater risks of regulatory capture, corruption, and enforcement challenges if they replicate the EU’s approach without adapting it to their economic realities (Section 2). A key concern with the DMA is the departure from traditional case-by-case enforcement in competition policy, instead relying on broad, pre-emptive obligations based on ambiguous concepts such as fairness and contestability. This shift reduces legal certainty, increases the risk of inconsistent enforcement, and may inhibit dynamic competition, which is essential for innovation-driven sectors like fintech, e-commerce, ICT, and edtech. By prioritising static over dynamic competition, the DMA could impede technological progress, limiting consumer choice and long-term economic benefits (Section 3). The global adoption of DMA-like regulations risks further regulatory fragmentation and may create unintended consequences, particularly in emerging economies where regulatory frameworks, institutional quality, and market structures differ significantly from the EU. Broad prohibitions on business practices, such as self-preferencing and data-sharing, could limit opportunities for local firms to scale internationally, weaken cybersecurity protections, and reduce incentives for large technology firms to invest in these regions (Section 4). To ensure proportionate and effective competition enforcement, governments outside the EU should prioritise regulatory flexibility and case-by-case assessments over broad, static restrictions. OECD best practices on competition policy emphasise clear objectives, legal certainty, and regulatory proportionality, ensuring that competition enforcement supports, rather than stifles, innovation and investment (Section 5). Moreover, the risks of corruption and regulatory overreach in developing countries make broad ex-ante regulations especially problematic. Excessive discretionary power granted to local authorities could increase the risk of politically motivated enforcement, deter foreign investment, and undermine long-term economic growth. A more effective approach would be to strengthen institutional frameworks, enhance transparency, and adopt supply-side policies that support technology neutrality, free trade, and economic freedom.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Regulation, Digital Markets Act (DMA), and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

5. Collective Action in the Netherlands: Why It Matters for the Transposition of the Product Liability Directive

Author:
Oscar Guinea, Dyuti Pandya, and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This policy brief explores the implications of the Netherlands’ transposition of the new EU Product Liability Directive (PLD), focusing on its interaction with the Dutch collective action system. As one of the first EU countries to implement PLD and a key hub for mass litigation, the Netherlands offers a compelling case study. Features such as low claim thresholds, opt-out mechanisms, flexible settlements, limited cost-shifting, and the ease of creating litigation-backed entities make the Netherlands particularly attractive for mass claims, reinforcing its reputation as a “litigation magnet.” The new PLD simplifies liability claims, broadens the definition of “product” to include software, digital files, and related services, lowers evidentiary thresholds, extends liability to third-party actions such as cyberattacks, and includes post-market defects. These provisions, combined with the Netherlands’ collective redress regime, are expected to drive a rise in mass litigation. This rise poses particular economic risks for the Netherlands, one of the EU’s most digitised economies. Ranked sixth in digital adoption by Eurostat’s Digital Intensity Index, Dutch firms – especially in finance, insurance, ICT, and manufacturing – may also face growing exposure to collective actions under the PLD, which extends liability across the entire value chain. These sectors account for 27 percent of the value added in the Dutch market economy and are widely recognised as key drivers of economic growth. Increased legal uncertainty may also reduce the Netherlands’ attractiveness to multinational corporations, threatening levels of foreign direct investment and employment, both essential pillars of the Dutch economy. Growing mass litigation may also hinder innovation by redirecting R&D resources toward legal risk management. This is particularly concerning for the Netherlands, one of the EU’s top R&D investors. Drawing on US evidence, large-scale litigation can significantly erode market capitalisation, and based on our estimates, the cumulative loss in value for 31 Dutch companies featured in the EU R&D Scoreboard could reach €5.5 billion under the high-growth scenario. Such declines could impact household wealth, as Dutch households save approximately 14.6 percent of their gross disposable income, of which 20 percent is invested in equity. Pension funds, which also play a central role in Dutch long-term savings, can also hold significant stakes in publicly traded Dutch companies. As a result, the effects of collective actions on the market value of Dutch companies extend beyond corporate balance sheets, posing potential negative consequences for Dutch savers, as well as current and future pensioners. This report was commissioned by the European Justice Forum, a coalition of businesses, individuals and organisations that are working to build fair, balanced, transparent and efficient civil justice laws and systems for both consumers and businesses in Europe.
Topic:
European Union, Economy, Litigation, and Liability
Political Geography:
Europe and Netherlands

6. The Impact of Increased Mass Litigation in the UK

Author:
Oscar Guinea, Dyuti Pandya, Vanika Sharma, and Renata Zilli
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has seen a marked rise in collective litigation, transforming what was once a niche legal, rarely employed, tool into a fast-growing business model with wide-ranging economic implications. At a time when the country seeks to boost investment, support innovation and attract global business, the proliferation of mass litigation risks undermining these ambitions. This study takes a closer look at how mass litigation is reshaping the UK’s legal, business and regulatory landscape – and asks whether the balance between justice and economic efficiency is tipping too far. The UK stands out among European countries for the ease with which mass claims can be launched. It has long provided a favourable environment for consumer representation and dispute resolution, with a strong culture of accountability. But recent years have seen the emergence of a new ecosystem: law firms specialising in group actions; litigation funders offering upfront capital in exchange for a share of awards; and Claims Management Companies (CMCs) that recruit claimants en masse and process high volumes of cases. The business model has proved highly successful, making group litigation an asset class in its own right and pushing collective actions far beyond traditional sectors such as banking and pharmaceuticals. Today, a growing portion of the UK economy is in the firing line – with potentially damaging consequences. This shift has been rapid and striking. From fewer than 10 mass litigation cases in the late 2010s, the UK saw 47 such actions in 2024 alone, more than any other European country. On a per capita basis, the UK ranks as one of the most litigious jurisdictions in Europe, well ahead of comparable economies such as France or Germany. The implications for the UK economy are far-reaching: many of the companies targeted by these actions operate in sectors that were included in the UK Government’s latest industrial strategy as critical to the country’s future economic growth. Whereas previously limited to financial and professional services, mass litigation cases are now rising in UK companies working in life sciences, advanced manufacturing and digital services. These are industries where risk-taking, long product development cycles and data-driven innovation are the norm. The threat of mass litigation introduces uncertainty and cost at exactly the moment when these businesses need regulatory clarity and investment stability. Moreover, claims against public sector entities involve a direct transfer of capital from the tax payer to hedge fund litigation funders. The financial burden is also considerable. Legal fees and returns to funders often consume a large share of total settlements, reducing the compensation that actually reaches affected individuals. In the Post Office Horizon scandal, for example, £46 million in legal fees and funders payments were deducted from a £57 million settlement, leaving a paltry sum of just over £20,000 per claimant. In the recent judgment of Merricks v. Mastercard, £100 million have been allocated to compensate consumers. Affected individuals could receive up to £70 each if only 5 percent claim, but as little as £2.5 if the full class of 44 million comes forward. These figures raise questions about who really benefits from mass litigation. The limited benefits for individual consumers stand in stark contrast to the substantial costs that mass litigation imposes on the UK economy as a whole. Our scenario modelling shows that, under a scenario where the costs of mass litigation are just 30 percent of the current costs in the US, litigation costs in the UK could reach more than half of the claim value; the cost of mass litigation for the UK economy could reach close to £18 billion, and the market capitalisation of the UK’s most innovative companies could fall by £11.2 billion, more than half the announced public investment into R&D in the 2025 Autumn Budget. These financial pressures affect the whole country. While many large companies are headquartered in Greater London, their operations, and the jobs they support, are often spread across the wider regions. This means that the impact of a legal challenge is not just a concern for a corporate boardroom in London, but it impacts local economies and communities across the UK. As the Civil Justice Council reviews the framework for litigation funding, this study provides evidence to inform the debate. It does not argue against collective actions per se but urges a careful weighing of their benefits against broader economic costs. If the UK wants to remain an attractive destination for business, investment, and innovation, it must ensure that its legal infrastructure supports rather than stifles those ambitions.
Topic:
Economics, European Union, Finance, and Litigation
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

7. Calling on the EU-US Trade and Technology Council: How to Deliver for the Planet and the Economy

Author:
Oscar Guinea, Vanika Sharma, Philipp Lamprecht, Dyuti Pandya, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This Policy Brief proposes the establishment of an agreement on conformity assessment between the EU and the US that covers machinery and electrical equipment. The initiative aims to increase the number of European and US conformity assessment bodies authorized to test and certify EU and US machinery and electrical equipment for exports into each other’s markets, without recognizing the equivalency or otherwise altering the product requirements in regulation, standards, or other normative documents on either side. While this study focuses on the economic effects of an agreement on conformity assessment that includes machinery and electrical equipment, the scope of such an agreement could potentially be extended to several additional product categories, particularly those that are subject to requirements for mandatory third-party conformity assessment in both the EU and the US. The increase in the number of conformity assessment bodies is expected to reduce the costs and the time required to demonstrate conformity. If this policy succeeds as expected in achieving a reduction in trade costs between 2 and 6 percent, US exports to the EU are projected to increase between US$ 11 billion and US$ 32.5 billion while EU exports to the US are estimated to grow by between US$ 13.8 billion and US$ 42.2 billion. In percentage terms, US firms are anticipated to experience a larger increase in exports of machinery and electrical equipment than their EU counterparts. The increase in trade flows as a result of this agreement is estimated to be larger than the rise in trade flows achieved in other Free Trade Agreements signed by the EU or the US. Moreover, as an increasing number of EU regulations begin to mandate third-party conformity assessment, US firms will increasingly benefit from this agreement when exporting to the EU. Given China’s status as the largest supplier of machinery and electrical equipment to both the EU and the US, the implementation of an EU-US agreement on conformity assessment would not only improve conditions for transatlantic trade but also lead to reduced trade dependence for the EU and the US on China. The reduction in trade costs between the EU and the US on machinery and electrical equipment due to the agreement could lower Chinese exports to the EU and the US by between US$ 6.5 billion and US$ 19.4 billion. Importantly, machinery and electrical equipment are crucial inputs for some of the key technologies in which the EU and the US Administrations have identified trade dependencies on China. However, in contrast with other policies aimed at reducing reliance on Chinese imports, an agreement on conformity assessment for machinery and electrical equipment will not require public subsidies or impose any financial burden on taxpayers. This agreement also has the potential to benefit the environment. Machinery and electrical equipment are essential inputs for green technologies. Therefore, a reduction in the cost and time of conformity assessment in these industries will accelerate the adoption of green technologies. An agreement on conformity assessment between the EU and the US covering green goods and clean technologies could increase transatlantic exports between US$ 3.1 billion and US$ 9.2 billion. While this increase in exports is significant, broadening the scope of the agreement to include the entirety of machinery and electrical equipment, rather than just a subset, is projected to lead to trade effects eight times larger. Moreover, as green technologies rapidly evolve, an agreement on conformity assessment has the potential to serve as a dynamic instrument that evolves to accommodate future regulatory and economic developments on climate and the environment on both sides of the Atlantic.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Economy, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

8. Reinventing Europe’s Single Market: A Way Forward to Align Ideals and Action

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Dyuti Pandya, Vanika Sharma, and Elena Sisto
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
It is essential for EU institutions and Member State governments to shift their focus from the abstract concept of the “Single Market” to the concrete objective of “legal harmonisation in the EU.” This transition represents a strategic realignment towards more pragmatic policymaking. Adopting a 28th regime to address national regulation discrepancies would align with this goal and enhance the Single Market’s effectiveness in promoting economic growth and competitiveness. Given the EU’s ongoing loss of relative global economic clout, it is crucial to establish an ambitious timeline for implementing the most critical Single Market reforms. The Letta Report serves as a wake-up call to revitalise the EU’s Single Market, emphasising the need for decisive action. Its vision largely hinges on legal harmonisation within Europe, building on early efforts to liberalise markets and establish a truly integrated European market. Despite efforts, “integration fatigue” remains a significant challenge due to legal fragmentation across European economies. Previous reports, from the Cecchini Report in 1992 to the Europe 2020 Strategy, have highlighted persistent issues like regulatory divergences and declining political support for market integration. Despite numerous proposals, progress has been limited, and many challenges persist or have worsened (see Section 2). An analysis of EU reports reveals a shift in policy priorities over time. Initially, there was a strong focus on liberalisation and market opening, with less attention given to state aid and industrial policymaking. The Letta Report highlights the importance of regulatory convergence and harmonisation, reflecting a deeper understanding and recognition of the drivers of EU competitiveness. The rise of nationalism and a shift towards “Strategic Autonomy” within the EU have hindered crucial market reforms. This highlights the importance of aligning laws across Member States to strengthen and reinforce EU’s economic resilience and international competitiveness (see Section 3). EU institutions and Member State governments should set specific goals for “legal harmonisation in the EU.” This shift would address real challenges faced by businesses and citizens, and build political will for necessary reforms. Prioritising legal harmonisation would enhance internal cohesion and align national laws with Union-wide goals. An actionable roadmap – potentially with a 2028 deadline – is crucial to address the substantial gap between ambitious EU strategies and Europe’s economic realities. (see Section 4). Implementing sector-specific and horizontal policies in a new regulatory regime would improve cross-border operations and competitiveness. The Letta Report advocates for a European Code of Business Law to establish a unified regulatory framework, introducing a 28th legal regime to address national regulation discrepancies. Extending this regime to include tax and labour market policies would significantly enhance cross-border operations. The EU and Member State governments can eliminate substantial internal barriers by prioritising key horizontal policies affecting all businesses, such as fragmented tax laws, labour market policies, and social security systems. Simplifying and harmonising these policies on the basis of the facilitation of four freedoms is crucial for unlocking the Single Market’s potential for businesses and workers, boosting the EU’s global competitiveness. Allowing coalitions of willing countries to advance in certain areas of legal integration provides a viable solution to the long-standing Single Market “fatigue”. By enabling smaller groups of Member States to pursue integration in specific areas, the EU can bypass the constraints imposed by rigid voting requirements and achieve greater agility, accountability, and acceptance in EU law-making. This approach not only fosters flexibility but also upholds the fundamental principles and objectives of the EU. To ensure the integrity of the EU legal order and prevent unjustified barriers or discrimination against non-participating members, it is essential to establish safeguards and oversight mechanisms. These measures would maintain cohesion within the Union while allowing for progressive legal integration among willing Member States.
Topic:
Markets, European Union, Digital Economy, and Economic Integration
Political Geography:
Europe

9. In Support of Market-Driven Standards

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Fredrik Erixon, Oscar Guinea, and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The EU published its new Standardisation Strategy in 2022. The strategy contains some good ideas to improve the way European standards are set. However, in its attempt to gain more control over technical standards, the EU risks killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The primary motivation behind the strategy is the belief that the process governing the way CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI – the three European Standardisation Organisations – take decisions over EU standards favours non-EU multinationals. To address this perceived imbalance, EU National Standardisation Bodies will have the exclusive power to accept standardisation requests, and adopt, revise and withdraw European technical standards. These changes are particularly significant for ETSI, Europe’s Standardisation Body in charge of telecommunication standards and one of Europe’s most successful organisations. ETSI is a prime example of EU normative power since it hosts companies from more than 60 countries, while retaining a large membership of EU firms. The regulatory changes included in the strategy are not risk-free. There could be unintended consequences that may undermine a standardisation system that has delivered significant economic benefits for the EU and the world. First, giving more responsibility to EU’s National Standardisation Organisations will turn a European discussion into 30 (EU and EEA) national debates. As a consequence, small companies will not be able to contribute to each and every one of the National Standardisation Organisations, diluting their contribution, while multinational companies, with the resources needed to cooperate with a larger number of bodies, will benefit from an expanding role in the EU standard setting process. Second, if standards are fragmented along national borders and companies must multiply their efforts to take part in several Standardisation Development Organisations, there will be less resources for Research and Development spending. Finally, if each and every National Standardisation Organisation needs to have a position with regards to the acceptance of a standardisation request, or adoption, revision and withdrawal of European technical standards, the time period required to adopt a technical standard may be extended rather than shortened, which is the exact opposite of what the European Commission wants to achieve. The regulatory changes included in the EU Standardisation Strategy are akin to cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. If the European Commission is concerned about the influence of non-EU companies in European Standardisation Bodies, it does not need to overhaul their governance systems. Supporting greater participation of European firms in the European standard system will ease EU’s concerns without the downside risks associated with changing the rules of the game that govern Europe’s Standardisation Bodies. The success of the European standardisation system, which is market-driven and based on consensus, has had significant economic benefits in the development of specific industries, like the European Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Technical standards in ICT have shaped a European industry that is not only dynamic and international but also enjoys some of the highest levels of wages and Research and Development spending. Moreover, if technical standards are not developed through an open, consensus-based, and industry-led voluntary process, they will be developed in different ways. For instance, governments and private companies can develop standards by themselves. Both solutions are inferior to the current market-driven approach that governs European standards. However, the European market-driven approach to set standards is voluntary, and its success and continuation must not be assumed. European policymakers should be worried about tinkering with a European standardisation system which has produced economic specialisation and innovation to the benefits of EU firms and consumers.
Topic:
Markets, European Union, Regulation, Economy, and Standardization
Political Geography:
Europe

10. European Economic Security and Access to Critical Raw Materials: Trade, Diversification, and the Role of Mercosur

Author:
Oscar Guinea and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Access to secure and stable supply of critical raw materials (CRMs) is vital for Europe’s economic security. These raw materials, which are indispensable inputs for Europe’s modernisation, are supplied by a handful of countries. Among them, China and Russia are two of the most important European suppliers of CRMs. This dependency leaves the EU exposed to Chinese and Russian policies that may harm Europe’s economic and political interests. The European Commission has recently proposed a Critical Raw Materials Act with the objective of increasing domestic production of strategic raw materials (SRMs) – a subset of CRMs vital for the energy and digital transitions. However well-intentioned, most of the policies in the Act – which aim at producing more SRMs in Europe – are a red herring. While the EU needs to reduce its vulnerable dependence on some countries, the politics about the supply of CRMs have become hostage to manufacturing fetish, import-substitution ideas, and companies who want governments to subsidise their investments and growth. In reality, getting substantial amounts of Europe-produced SRMs to market will take years – if not decades – and new mines will face significant legal and environmental resistance. It is simply not realistic to expect that higher domestic production in the EU will reduce Europe’s current dependency on imported SRMs anytime soon. If it is economic security and reduced vulnerabilities that Europe wants, a different strategy is needed. There is a better alternative. Trade dependencies of CRMs can only be fought with more trade. One option exist already: the EU could diversify its supplies of CRMs away from China and Russia by trading more with other exporters of CRMs. Mercosur is an obvious partner to achieve this goal. Brazil, a member of Mercosur, is the largest supplier of SRMs to the EU by volume and the Mercosur countries are democratic market economies that are seeking deeper relations with Europe. To encourage trade and investment in CRMs across both regions, the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement includes binding provisions that will place the bilateral trade and investment relations under a more certain institutional arrangement. Other policies, such as those included in the EU’s CRM Act, can only complement but not substitute for a trade-oriented strategy to improve the structure of SRM supply.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, European Union, Trade, Economic Security, Mercosur, and Raw Materials
Political Geography:
Europe