Search

Begin New Search Topic Markets 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. 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

3. 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

4. Online Platform Regulation and Investment Attractiveness: A Look at the EU, the UK and Impacts on Small Open Economies

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Vanika Sharma, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Small trade- and investment-oriented economies like the United Kingdom (UK) should carefully consider whether to regulate online platform services based on presumptions rather than evidence that consumers are being harmed. Flimsily enforced platform regulation can have a chilling effect on investments in business expansion and innovation, particularly in technology-adopting industries. Several countries around the world are designing new competition policies that specifically target large digital platforms. The theory behind these policies is grey. There are political concerns about the impact of various aspects of platforms on society, especially regarding the collection and safety of data. However, practices that harm consumers – traditionally a key motivation of competition enforcement – are very rare. Indeed, the success stories of large tech platforms demonstrate that they offer strong benefits and conveniences to millions of business users across a wide range of industries. Marginal costs of supply, high-quality services, continuous technological advancements, and platforms’ ability to drive productivity growth have enabled especially small businesses to thrive and compete in domestic and international markets. Against this background, it is highly questionable why some governments, with the backing of power-seeking competition regulators, are aiming to legally interfere in services provided by large technology companies. An important consequence that has so far received little attention from policymakers and competition authorities is the impact of platform regulation on a country’s investment attractiveness. It is obvious that bans and restrictions on corporate conduct cause regulated companies to abstain from investments and establish new business elsewhere. What is less clear is the effect of regulation on investments by companies that extensively adopt platform services to reduce costs, speed-up innovation, and expand market opportunities. In this policy brief, we argue that access to integrated and internationally traded platform services is increasingly important for a country’s investment attractiveness, even more so for smaller countries. Access to advanced technologies and the utilisation of network effects create a virtuous cycle of economic opportunities, investments, value creation, and trade. Discretionary and presumption-based competition enforcement, as adopted in the EU, risks hurting smaller countries in particular. The EU has chosen the path of proscriptive and protective policymaking with the DMA to achieve industrial and trade policy goals rather than defending competition in the Single Market. UK competition policy risks being driven by institutional interests and ideological considerations, which could potentially lead to the adoption of a regulatory landscape that is even more restrictive than that of the EU, undermining Britain’s ambitions for economic and innovation leadership.
Topic:
Markets, European Union, Regulation, Economy, Investment, Trade, and Online Platforms
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe