The new EP Library Catalogue allows you to search the EP collection for:
- Journals, books and articles in paper or electronic format
- EPRS and Policy Department publications
Abstract by the author: Preparation of the financial perspective 2021–2027 is to implement the principle of programming the spending of public funds by the EU institutions. Striving to ensure sound management of EU finances by strengthening the rule of law mechanism has become the core value of the new EU budget. The discussion on the EU budget focuses on public policy issues, in particular on aspects such as migration policy and border protection, defense cooperation, climate policy, as well as research and entrepreneurship. In spite of absence from the main stream of the debate, an important part of the EU budget in perspective 2021–2027 will continue to be the common agricultural policy.
Abstract by the authors: While public support is central to the problem-solving capacity of the European Union, we know little about when and why the EU can increase its citizens' support through spending. Extensive research finds that citizens living in countries that are net beneficiaries of the EU budget are more supportive of the EU, assuming that citizens care equally about all forms of spending. It is argued in this article, however, that the amount of spending is only part of the story. Understanding the effects of spending on support requires a consideration of how transfers are spent. Drawing on policy feedback theories in comparative politics, it is shown that support for the EU is a function of the fit between the spending area and economic need in individuals' immediate living context. Results from a statistical analysis of EU spending on human capital, infrastructure, agriculture, energy and environmental protection in 127 EU regions over the period 2001-2011 corroborate this argument. As the EU and other international organisations become increasingly publicly contested, the organisations themselves may increasingly try to shore up public support through spending, but they will only be successful under specific conditions.
Abstract by the author: 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.
Abstract by the author: This article examines the Commission’s proposal to strengthen the protection of the Rule of law in EU Member States through a new mechanism making EU funding conditional on a certain level of respect for the Rule of law. This mechanism proposed as part of the new MFF package is presented rather technically as a tool ‘to protect the EU budget from financial risks linked to generalised deficiencies as regards the RoL’, but it is apparently meant to complement the procedure foreseen in Article 7 TEU which is considered insufficiently effective. The article concludes that the newly proposed mechanism gives a strong role to the Commission which would be in a key position to impose sanctions which would bypass the Article 7 procedure in a way difficult to reconcile with primary law.
Abstract by the author: Despite its political signifi cance the size of the European Union’s budget is rather modest: the expenditures make up less than one per cent of the EU’s Gross National Income. This article aims to examine the long-term problems linked to the budget. Critical analysis of characteristic features of the EU budget is particularly important, as we argue the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 maintains the “old” problems, and we suggest that a more comprehensive long-term reform is necessary. Under such circumstances, it is worthwhile to refl ect on the tasks, functions and structural problems of the budget and on how to use available resources in a more structured and effi cient way.
Abstract by the authors: Existing research has primarily focused on the role of utility and identity in shaping individuals’ European Union (EU) preferences. This article argues that macroeconomic context is a crucial predictor of attitudes towards transnational financial assistance, which has been omitted from previous analyses. Using data from the 2014 European Election Studies (EES) Voter Study for 28 EU member states, this article demonstrates that citizens living in poorer EU countries are less willing to support fiscal solidarity than their counterparts in more affluent countries. Country affluence serves as a heuristic, moderating the relationship between individual-level utility and identity considerations and willingness to show solidarity to member states with economic difficulties. When a country does not fare well economically, citizens’ views on providing help to others remain negative, irrespective of individual-level utilitarian and identity considerations. Our findings have implications for understanding the decision-making calculus underlying preference formation.
Abstract by the author: Maintaining mostly a national and EU-level focus, the transnational dimension has been overlooked in the policy instrumentation literature. Seeking to fill this gap, this article researches the factors that shape the choice and evolution of policy instruments in transnational administrations, namely above and beyond the state. In an empirical analysis of budget support, it finds that the preference of the European Commission for this development aid instrument is dependent upon transnational agency and EU domestic habitat. This is evidenced in three steps. First, conflicting global objectives and institutional strategies of re-legitimization provided transnational administrative agency with power and leverage to promote managerial norms over developmental ones. Second, transnational knowledge networks have provided the European Commission venues of socialization to maintain its monopoly over the instrument. Third, the de-politicized transnational logic of budget support as a managerial tool is correlated to an increased politicization by some EU member states.
Abstract by the authors: This article examines how the European Union has addressed the dramatic influx of refugees through programmes funded by the EU budget. This migratory surge has placed significant and unexpected fiscal demands on the EU’s current multi-year budgetary framework. As a result, the EU has been forced to employ a variety of budgetary procedures and new fiscal instruments to give it the fiscal flexibility it needs to fund programmes administered inside and outside the EU. Some of these very new fiscal instruments add an additional layer of complexity to the current funding architecture, and it is too early to determine how well these spending practices stand up to Parliamentarian oversight, monitoring, auditing, and regular reporting.
Abstract by the author: For the first time, security and defence will be a separate heading in the next MFF even though Article 41.2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) prohibits the use of the EU budget for defence reasons.
Abstract by the author: The financing of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operations questions the capacity of the European Union (EU) to contribute to crisis management. Instead of a single mechanism that would be used for all kinds of missions, different mechanisms are applied, depending on the objective and nature of the operation. The aim of this article is to explain change and inertia in the way these operations are funded. The first section is dedicated to the presentation of the legal framework and its characterization as a fragmented and flexible structure. It allows for identifying the changes that have affected the financing of EU operational activities abroad. The main problems and challenges in financing CSDP operations are dealt with in the second section. The third section explains: (1) why changes have occurred in some areas and (2) why inertia has prevailed in other areas in spite of the problems previously identified. Three main explanations are tested. Rules and practices in financing CSDP operations (1) result from operational needs, (2) are influenced by proactive supranational institutions and (3) are triggered by the Member States. These three explanations are not mutually exclusive. They all contribute to the understanding of CSDP operations, but the relative importance of each factor depends on the operations at hand. Generally, the second factor is at play in the case of civilian operations, while the third one prevails with regard to military operations. The first factor brings a complementary explanation to both kinds of operations.
Abstract by the author: Objective: The aim of the present study is to examine whether the European Union budget comprises significant resources for financing measures relating to social cohesion. The analysis is based on the contents of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Given the constraints of space and for the sake of clarity of the argument, the author focuses on the role of the EU budget rather than all measures aimed at social cohesion undertaken by EU institutions or targeted by policies of individual Member States. Methodology: Documents, studies and reports published by the European Commission constitute the main source of information. In addition, the author has taken into account macroeconomic data demonstrating the deterioration of the social situation since 2009, as well as the instruments that the European Commission has deployed since 2013 in order to respond to post-crisis challenges. Conclusions: It can be roughly estimated that more than 40 percent of total resources within the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020 shall be allocated to the social cohesion policy. Opportunities afforded by the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy include primarily the definition of objectives whose priority is indisputable and the introduction of the hitherto neglected analysis of certain socio-economic indicators, classified by country or region and, in certain cases, examined in more detail than required by the European Commission. The monitoring of objectives is conducive to the introduction of new solutions and implementation tools, as exemplified by the new instruments within the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020, as well as the adjustment of available funds in light of the most pressing challenges. The European Semester has facilitated the task of comparing progress in strategy implementation by individual Member States, as well as the provision of recommendations for each of them and an individualized approach. Research implications: This article contributes to the discussion on further integration of the European Union’s social dimension, with particular emphasis on the need to work out a common approach to immigration policy. Originality: The author presents her own opinions regarding current events in terms of the post-crisis social cohesion policies of the European Union, taking into account the European Commission’s financial instruments.
Abstract by the authors: This article characterises national preferences of the EU Member States in previous negotiations on the EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and analyses them in the context of both budget negotiations for the 2021-27 period and the future of the European integration.
It has been concluded that the EU Member States preferences concerning the shape and size of the EU budget after 2020 will remain differentiated. The changing balance of payments and receipts to and from the EU budget will determine how the EU Member States assess the need to finance specific measures and actions at the EU level. Recent EU budget beneficiaries, currently on the path to reach the level of wealth of the net payers, will join the group of countries wishing to freeze the EU budget. The worsening budgetary position of many net payers will also probably strengthen their reluctance to continue financing the EU activities. The growing Euroscepticism of European societies will certainly hamper negotiations directed towards increasing the effectiveness of the EU budget. As a result, political conditions and social preferences will build up the pressure to reduce the EU budget in the future. Also, it is hard to expect any significant transformation in the structure of the EU spending in the years to come. On the one hand, Member States recognise the importance of new funding priorities (e.g. to deal with new threats), on the other, they are against increasing the EU budget. Therefore, the scenario of financing new priorities, basically from national budgets, is quite possible. This, in the longer term, will negatively affect the position and role of the EU in the world.
Abstract by the authors: We demonstrate that the nationalities of EU Commissioners influence budget allocation decisions in favor of their country of origin. Our focus is on the Commissioners for Agriculture, who are exclusively responsible for a specific fund that accounts for the largest share of the overall EU budget. On average, providing the Commissioner causes a 1 percentage point increase in a country's share of the overall EU budget, which corresponds to 850 million euros per year. There are no different pretreatment trends and the magnitude of the bias from selection-on-unobservables would have to be implausibly high to account for the estimated coefficient.
Online journal articles – You can access a broad collection of e-articles :
If you are unable to access the article you need, please contact us and we will get it for you as soon as possible.
| Data Protection Notice | Cookie Policy & Inventory |
 |
 |
 |
Journals on all devices |
Books, articles, EPRS publications & more |
Newspapers on all devices |