Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Europe Publication Year within 1 Year

91. Which companies are ahead in frontier innovation on critical technologies? Comparing China, the European Union and the United States

Author:
Alicia Garcia-Herrero, Michal Krystyanczuk, and Robin Schindowski
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Competition in critical technologies is attracting increasing attention not only because of the foundational nature of these technologies for other types of innovation, but also because of their role in the United States national security strategy. In this paper, we look into which entities in China, the European Union and the US innovate at the technology frontier in the three most important critical technologies – artificial intelligence, quantum computing and semiconductors – based on identification of the most radical novel patents in these technologies and their subsectors. Working with these pathbreaking patents, we look into the origin of the companies that file the largest numbers of them. US innovators dominate the innovation frontier for quantum computing and, to a lesser extent, AI, with Chinese innovators doing better in semiconductors. European innovators lag in all, but perform relatively better in quantum computing, in which they rank similarly to Chinese innovators. Furthermore, the innovation ecosystem is quite different across geographies. In the US, tech companies top the rankings of critical novelties and are highly concentrated: as many as three companies are in the top rankings of all of the three critical technologies. Frontier innovators in the field in which the EU competes most equally – quantum – are mostly research centres and not companies. China lies somewhat in between in all three domains.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Innovation, Artificial Intelligence, Semiconductors, and Quantum Computing
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America

92. Intra-Western Balkans dynamics: stocktaking and ways ahead

Author:
Armin Steinbach, Nina Vujanović, and Anna Fiore
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
In the context of the push by the European Union for regional integration in the Western Balkans, this paper explores the barriers to, and prospects for, deeper intra-Western Balkan economic relationships. First, it addresses the pronounced bilateral economic relationships between Western Balkan countries associated with historical path-dependencies. Second, by comparing the Central European Free Trade Agreement with Stabilisation and Association Agreements that the EU has with Western Balkan countries, it identifies areas of less economic integration under the former. Third, it focuses on intra-Western Balkan trade barriers and how the associated costs influence regional integration. Finally, the paper describes the structures of Western Balkan economies and how much they contribute to regional exports through domestic value added. The paper emphasises the importance of regulatory alignment for reducing trade barriers and the role of funds under the EU Growth Plan for the Western Balkans for investment in transport infrastructure within the region. It finds that the Central European Free Trade Agreement and Common Regional Market should focus on untapped potential, especially in the liberalisation of capital, services and movement for employment. Infrastructure issues, trade logistics and the tackling of technical barriers to trade should feature prominently on the policy agenda.
Topic:
Governance, Macroeconomics, Trade, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
Europe and Western Balkans

93. Implementing the EU Nature Restoration Law: exploring pathways for member states

Author:
Heather Grabbe, Bas Heerma van Voss, Camille Mehlbaum, and Sjoerd van der Zwaag
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The European Union Nature Restoration Law (NRL) entered into force in 2024. The NRL sets quantitative restoration targets aimed at improving natural habitats that are currently in poor condition, with substantial leeway for countries to choose implementation pathways that fit their priorities. This Working Paper examines three pathways: (1) evenly spreading restoration efforts across all ecosystems; (2) prioritising cost-efficiency; and (3) maximising carbon sequestration. Each approach yields vastly different outcomes. This paper provides insights into the trade-offs. For countries seeking to minimise costs in the short run, an 81 percent reduction in costs over the period 2025-2030 is possible compared to a baseline scenario of an even restoration of all ecosystems. Countries that aim to maximise carbon sequestration benefits can achieve a 54 percent increase in climate impact over the same period. However, the different pathways converge after 2040. Prioritising cost minimisation in the early years could lead to higher costs later if delays in investment in the more costly restoration projects allow habitats to continue to degrade. Maximising cost-efficient carbon sequestration is possible, allowing relatively low investment costs and high sequestration. Countries should adopt a holistic approach to pathway selection, considering the full spectrum of ecological and societal gains alongside climate mitigation. Land ownership is an important factor that shapes feasible and effective pathways. In countries such as Spain and Germany, where private entities own substantial shares of agricultural and forest lands, policies should incentivise private investment, including through norms, subsidies or pricing mechanisms. Countries with substantial public landholdings, such as the Netherlands, may find it easier to implement direct restoration projects. These structural differences will influence the cost and pace of restoration and also the design of policies and governance mechanisms to ensure compliance with NRL targets.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Decarbonization, Green Deal, Energy, and Carbon Sequestration
Political Geography:
Europe

94. European export finance needs a reboot

Author:
Conor McCaffrey and Niclas Poitiers
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Export credit agencies (ECAs) play an important role in international trade by providing derisking instruments that function as public assistance to companies engaging in international commerce. As the geopolitical environment has become more fraught, this support has become ever more important. In recent years, the role of ECAs has evolved from a purely commercial one to include the pursuit of strategic goals, such as fighting climate change, shaping trade relations with key partners and securing access to critical raw materials. However, the system of European export credit agencies is not well equipped to deal with these challenges. ECAs are national with a variety of models and not all European Union countries have one. There is little transparency on their operations, very limited steering at the EU level and, beyond a small pilot project in Ukraine, no EU-level funding for European public goods. Non-EU ECAs have increasingly used funding instruments not available to EU ones, partly because of competition from countries not subject to the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits and state aid constraints. This makes the lack of coordination not only a strategic oversight but a potential competitive disadvantage. For these reasons, we argue that reform of the European ECA sector is necessary. We advocate for improved transparency and EU-level steering to ensure European strategic objectives are met. More complex is the question of how European public goods could be adequately supported by ECAs. Several models are possible, with the most promising option being EU level funding for projects implemented by national ECAs coupled with some form of EU level oversight.
Topic:
Governance, Regulation, Exports, Macroeconomics, and Financial Literacy
Political Geography:
Europe

95. How can Europe’s nuclear deterrence trilemma be resolved?

Author:
Andrea Gilli and Francesco Nicoli
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The United States under President Donald Trump has adopted an ambiguous position on European security. Although no immediate risk of abandonment is apparent, European countries are rethinking their defence strategies in case the US declines to support them, or provides only partial support, in a crisis. This discussion is particularly sensitive in relation to nuclear weapons, the ultimate deterrent, for which European countries depend extensively on the United States. We argue that a possible future US withdrawal from European nuclear security will force European countries to face a policy trilemma. If they stick to the existing policy framework of no proliferation and no joint deterrence, they expose themselves to nuclear blackmail, should the US withdraw its external guarantee. If they want to protect themselves from nuclear blackmail, they must choose how to provide nuclear security: either collective nuclear security, which would compromise some national sovereignty, or independent provision by individual countries, leading to nuclear proliferation in Europe. Having established that uncontrolled proliferation is an inferior outcome to some form of joint deterrence, we identify four main alternatives: an extension of the Franco-British nuclear deterrent; an extension complemented by a jointly financed expansion of existing deterrence; the absorption of the French (and perhaps British) nuclear arsenals into a European arsenal; and the construction of a separate European submarine deterrent (with Europe using French or British technology or developing new technology). We also discuss briefly forms of non-nuclear deterrence, which however would likely be a complementary rather than a substitute for a nuclear deterrent. We compare these options using a set of parameters: strategic autonomy and credibility, changes to treaties (including non-proliferation), costs, capabilities and readiness. Our analysis shows that all options have advantages and disadvantages, but some are politically, financially and militarily more feasible.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Industrial Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Geopolitics, Macroeconomics, Deterrence, Transatlantic Relations, and Vulnerability
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

96. Using data as a production factor: policy ideas for a new EU data strategy

Author:
Bertin Martins
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
A major task for the 2024-2029 European Commission will be to reconcile and simplify the European Union’s range of data-market laws into a more coherent framework. At the heart of the approach should be the non-rival nature of data, meaning it can be used by many parties for many purposes at the same time. That creates the potential for economic efficiency gains from the re-use and aggregation of data. Exclusive private data control rights and high transaction costs may stand in the way of realising these gains. We define economic criteria against which existing data market regulations can be evaluated. These criteria lead to the following recommendations to improve existing EU data regulations: The EU general data protection regulation facilitates re-use of personal data. Machine-readable consent notices and real-time data transfers could reduce high transaction costs that prevent meaningful exercise of informed consent. The European Health Data Space contains an almost-ideal governance regime for health-data re-use and pooling that maximises incentives for data-driven innovation. This regime should be applied to other industrial data-space initiatives. The Data Act facilitates access and re-use of product data but exclusive licensing rights for data holders, monopolistic pricing of third-party data transfers and other anti-competitive measures reduce its impact. Widening its application to services data would make it a truly horizontal data-market regulation. The Digital Markets Act contains several obligations for platforms to grant users access to their own data. Widening access to networked data would facilitate competition between platforms and their users. Mutual instead of unilateral sharing of search-engine data would avoid fragmentation of the search-data pool. The Artificial Intelligence Act imposes unwarranted and costly restrictions on the re-use of copyright-related content data for AI model training data, reducing the innovative impact of AI. The text and data mining exception in the EU Copyright Directive could be broadened to address these new AI technology challenges. EU data market regulations exhibit a tension between exclusive private rights and the realisation of the wider societal value of data. Finding an acceptable balance may involve some redistribution of the efficiency gains between data users and the original data collectors.
Topic:
Markets, European Union, Digital Economy, Microeconomics, Data, and Digital Markets Act (DMA)
Political Geography:
Europe

97. Prepare now: Europe must get ready for the coming long-term care surge

Author:
Svend E. Hougaard Jensen, David Pinkus, and Nina Ruer
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Demographic change and ageing populations in European Union countries will impact many aspects of the economy and have a direct effect on long-term care (LTC) systems. Demand for LTC already exceeds supply in many EU countries, leading to the ‘care gap’. This gap is expected to widen, threatening quality of life for the elderly, exacerbating gender disparities and imposing significant economic costs. The root causes of the gap include demographic shifts, inadequate public investment, workforce shortages and a heavy reliance on informal caregiving. Women stand to lose the most if no steps are taken to prepare LTC systems for the coming surge in demand because care, both formal and informal, is predominantly provided by women. The care gap can be reduced by either increasing the supply of care or by reducing the demand for care. We assess LTC reforms in five EU countries and explain how these can affect the care gap by influencing demand and supply. Governments should: Recognise LTC as a priority. Governments should increase public spending on LTC and make LTC a central policy priority linked to broader goals, including gender equality and economic growth. Expand funding mechanisms. Governments can introduce new means of financing, such as mandatory LTC insurance and pre-funding mechanisms. Most importantly, benefits should target those with the greatest needs, to promote equity and adequacy. Support the workforce more. The LTC sector should be made more attractive by raising wages, improving working conditions and expanding training programmes to attract and retain workers. Develop prevention strategies. EU funds could be directed to research into treatments targeting age-related diseases such as dementia. National governments could invest in public health campaigns and preventive care to reduce future demand. Use the newest technologies. EU countries should invest in robotics and assistive technologies to improve productivity and to reduce physical strain on caregivers.
Topic:
Economics, Health, Governance, European Union, and Macroeconomics
Political Geography:
Europe

98. Not yet Trump-proof: an evaluation of the European Commission’s emerging policy platform

Author:
Heather Grabbe and Jeromin Zettelmeyer
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The economic strategy being defined by the 2024-2029 European Commission seems to follow the prescriptions on innovation and single market reform, and the expansive approach to industrial policy, set out by Mario Draghi in his September 2024 report on European Union competitiveness, with two important differences. First, the Commission stops short of calling for World Trade Organisation-prohibited subsidies – this is welcome. Second, the Commission proposes a new state aid framework for national industrial policy rather than expansion of EU-level public investment funding. This runs the risk of weakening the single market and harming competition, with the unintended consequence of protecting incumbents and inhibiting structural change. In terms of specific policies, on defence, the Commission is right to face up to the challenge of defining an EU procurement mechanism that offers sufficient speed and cost advantages to justify large-scale funding. On economic security and international partnerships, the Commission is right to take a broader approach than a foreign economic policy focused only on supply chains. What is lacking is a much greater commitment to providing support for climate mitigation in developing countries. The second Trump presidency creates risks for the Commission strategy. President Trump has gone further than expected in threatening territorial expansion and with the speed, aggression and disregard for the rule of law with which he has started to implement his policies. These factors will complicate the EU-United States relationship. The best defence against both Trump and the competitive and security threats posed by China is to accelerate policies that address the EU’s structural weaknesses: raising productivity growth, defence capacity and economic security. Economic security, in turn, requires more resilient trade relationships, less financial dependence on the US and an improved standing with emerging market and developing economies. The EU should also seize the opportunity offered by the shift in US policy from subsidies to deregulation. While the EU should not race Trump to the bottom on environmental or financial deregulation, it should rapidly improve its own regulatory framework while building on its core strengths: human capital and the rule of law. Unlike tariff wars or discriminatory subsidies, a competition to provide a good business environment is not a zero-sum game.
Topic:
Security, Economics, Industrial Policy, Budget, European Union, Digital Economy, Trade Policy, Donald Trump, Sustainability, European Commission, and Energy
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

99. Upgrading Europe's electricity grid is about more than just money

Author:
Conall Heussaff and Georg Zachmann
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Electricity network investment is essential for the energy transition, with annual investments of tens of billions of euros required across Europe. Network companies are already investing such amounts and delivering efficient grid investments requires more than additional money. Assessing infrastructure needs is the first step in grid investment. At local, national and European Union levels, network development planning is determined by policy choices and can greatly affect the efficiency of investments. Coordinated grid planning is crucial to set the right incentives for the efficient development of the European electricity system. An EU independent system operator could assume responsibility for network planning by providing regular, independent assessment of efficient network investment needs from a holistic European perspective. Although significant capital expenditure is undoubtedly necessary, network regulation should encourage network companies to invest in the most-efficient solutions. Current regulatory approaches may favour traditional capital expenditure, leading to system inefficiencies and higher-than-necessary consumer costs. Cross-border electricity transmission infrastructure is critical to integrate renewables into the electricity system at scale and reduce costs for European consumers. But such projects are often not built or are delayed because those that decide on and pay for the infrastructure are not necessarily those that benefit from it. A European fund could smooth negotiations between parties and accelerate the physical interconnection of the European electricity system. Fairly recovering the costs of grid investments from consumers is vital to maintain public support for the energy transition. National funds could smooth out cost impacts over time, keeping electricity affordable throughout the energy transition.
Topic:
Climate Change, Electricity, Decarbonization, and Energy Security
Political Geography:
Europe

100. How to improve the European Union’s sustainable finance framework

Author:
Silvia Merler
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The European Union has sought to steer corporate behaviour to support its climate goals by adopting a large body of rules on sustainable investment, sustainability disclosures and sustainability labelling of financial products, underpinned by a taxonomy of activities considered sustainable. It is unclear, however, if this effort has had significant results. Examination of financial market data and metrics of investment flows towards green and sustainable investment shows up several weaknesses – both contingent and structural – in the EU sustainable finance framework, which could limit its effectiveness in aligning capital flows with climate objectives. The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) is aimed at making the sustainability content of financial products more transparent but rests on a concept of ‘sustainable investment’ that is too broad and loosely defined. Meanwhile, the EU Taxonomy Regulation has not yet become established as the reference framework for corporate bond issuance or sustainable investing. The EU also lacks a coherent framework for transition finance – or investment that is not yet classified as sustainable but that represents progress to greater sustainability – despite this being the market segment to which the largest volumes of investment will need to flow in the short to medium run. Five adjustments would make the EU sustainable finance framework more effective at delivering the desired alignment of incentives. First, the taxonomy framework should be completed and clarified. Second, the SFDR definition of sustainable investment should be toughened. Third, the neutrality of the framework across capital market instruments, in particular debt versus equity, should be ensured. Fourth, a dedicated framework for transition finance should be developed. Finally, formal sustainable and transition labels for financial products should be introduced. This approach would make the sustainable finance framework more easily applicable to all kind of companies and all types of capital market instruments, regardless of whether they limit the use of proceeds, and it would be naturally extendable into a framework for transition finance and into a transparent sustainability labelling regime for financial products.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Regulation, Finance, Macroeconomics, and Sustainability
Political Geography:
Europe