The UK's decision to leave the EU (European Union) has put the Union in an unprecedented crisis. The exit per se of such a large member state in both economic and population size is causing turmoil, and the accumulated discontent towards the current system of the EU during the euro-area sovereign debt crisis and refugee crisis has come to the fore due to Brexit. Backed by this discontent, political forces arguing for their own countries' exit from the Union have also risen in other member states, and heads of governments of other major member states and EU institutions are rushing to propose reforms to the current system. The deepening and extending of the European integration since the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community for peace and prosperity in Europe right after the World War Ⅱ is put on break, and the uncertainty on the future shape of the EU has risen to an unprecedented level. This uncertainty is likely to cause troubles not only to the EU and its member states but also to third countries including South Korea in long-term decision makings at the levels of business, consumer and government, due to the Union's importance in world economy and international trade. Against this backdrop, this report analyzes the problems of the current system of the EU, forecasts its future shape and derives policy implications for Korean government. 영국의 탈퇴 결정으로 EU(European Union, 유럽연합)는 전례 없는 위기를 맞고 있다. 인구 및 경제 규모에서 높은 비중을 차지하는 주요 회원국의 탈퇴 자체가 가져오는 혼란뿐만 아니라, 유로지역 재정위기, 난민사태 등을 겪으며 쌓여온 EU 체제에 대한 불만이 브렉시트(영국의 EU 탈퇴)를 계기로 표면화 되었기 때문이다. 이러한 불만을 등에 업고 자국의 EU 탈퇴를 주장하는 정치세력들이 영국 외 EU 회원국들에서도 발호하였고, 주요 회원국 정상들과 EU 기관들은 현행 EU 체제에 대한 개혁안을 앞다투어 제시하고 있다. 제2차 세계대전 직후 유럽의 평화와 번영을 위해 설립된 유럽석탄철강공동체를 시작으로 줄곧 심화와 확대를 추구해온 유럽통합에 심각한 제동이 걸렸고, EU 체제의 미래가 어느 때보다 불확실해진 상황이다. EU 체제의 미래에 대한 불확실성은 당사자인 EU 및 회원국들뿐만 아니라, 세계경제와 국제무역에서 EU가 차지하는 높은 비중으로 인해 우리나라와 같은 제3국에도 기업, 소비자, 정부 등의 장기적인 의사결정에 큰 어려움을 줄 가능성이 높다. 이러한 문제의식 아래 본 보고서는 브렉시트를 계기로 표면화된 현행 EU 체제의 문제점을 분석하고 브렉시트 이후 EU 체제의 미래를 전망한 후 이를 바탕으로 우리 정부를 위한 정책시사점을 도출한다.
{"title":"브렉시트 이후 EU 체제의 전망과 정책시사점 (Post-Brexit EU System: Forecast and Policy Implications)","authors":"Dong Hee Joe, Cheol-won Lee, Tae-Hyun Oh, Hyun Jean Lee, You-Jin Lim","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3147531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3147531","url":null,"abstract":"The UK's decision to leave the EU (European Union) has put the Union in an unprecedented crisis. The exit per se of such a large member state in both economic and population size is causing turmoil, and the accumulated discontent towards the current system of the EU during the euro-area sovereign debt crisis and refugee crisis has come to the fore due to Brexit. Backed by this discontent, political forces arguing for their own countries' exit from the Union have also risen in other member states, and heads of governments of other major member states and EU institutions are rushing to propose reforms to the current system. The deepening and extending of the European integration since the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community for peace and prosperity in Europe right after the World War Ⅱ is put on break, and the uncertainty on the future shape of the EU has risen to an unprecedented level. This uncertainty is likely to cause troubles not only to the EU and its member states but also to third countries including South Korea in long-term decision makings at the levels of business, consumer and government, due to the Union's importance in world economy and international trade. Against this backdrop, this report analyzes the problems of the current system of the EU, forecasts its future shape and derives policy implications for Korean government. 영국의 탈퇴 결정으로 EU(European Union, 유럽연합)는 전례 없는 위기를 맞고 있다. 인구 및 경제 규모에서 높은 비중을 차지하는 주요 회원국의 탈퇴 자체가 가져오는 혼란뿐만 아니라, 유로지역 재정위기, 난민사태 등을 겪으며 쌓여온 EU 체제에 대한 불만이 브렉시트(영국의 EU 탈퇴)를 계기로 표면화 되었기 때문이다. 이러한 불만을 등에 업고 자국의 EU 탈퇴를 주장하는 정치세력들이 영국 외 EU 회원국들에서도 발호하였고, 주요 회원국 정상들과 EU 기관들은 현행 EU 체제에 대한 개혁안을 앞다투어 제시하고 있다. 제2차 세계대전 직후 유럽의 평화와 번영을 위해 설립된 유럽석탄철강공동체를 시작으로 줄곧 심화와 확대를 추구해온 유럽통합에 심각한 제동이 걸렸고, EU 체제의 미래가 어느 때보다 불확실해진 상황이다. EU 체제의 미래에 대한 불확실성은 당사자인 EU 및 회원국들뿐만 아니라, 세계경제와 국제무역에서 EU가 차지하는 높은 비중으로 인해 우리나라와 같은 제3국에도 기업, 소비자, 정부 등의 장기적인 의사결정에 큰 어려움을 줄 가능성이 높다. 이러한 문제의식 아래 본 보고서는 브렉시트를 계기로 표면화된 현행 EU 체제의 문제점을 분석하고 브렉시트 이후 EU 체제의 미래를 전망한 후 이를 바탕으로 우리 정부를 위한 정책시사점을 도출한다.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"194 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124232088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The chapter provides an overview of taxation in the EU and the taxation of the sharing economy in general. First, I turn to examine whether and if so, to what extent, secondary EU tax legislation applies in the sharing economy and how other areas of law, such as labour law, affect taxation. Following this, I briefly present some of the different initiatives of the Member States with regard to taxation of the sharing economy and the remaining challenges they face, including the potential applicability of state aid rules.
{"title":"Taxation of the Sharing Economy in the European Union","authors":"Katerina Pantazatou","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3091281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3091281","url":null,"abstract":"The chapter provides an overview of taxation in the EU and the taxation of the sharing economy in general. First, I turn to examine whether and if so, to what extent, secondary EU tax legislation applies in the sharing economy and how other areas of law, such as labour law, affect taxation. Following this, I briefly present some of the different initiatives of the Member States with regard to taxation of the sharing economy and the remaining challenges they face, including the potential applicability of state aid rules.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127286318","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The principle of legitimate expectations is a general principle, recognized by the European Union and a large number of her Member States. However, there is not a semantic uniformity in the European legal order. This literature review will focus from a comparative perspective on the principle of legitimate expectations as it exists in Belgian, Dutch and Union Law, applied to the recovery procedure of State aid, where procedural autonomy is conceded to member states. The corollary of this "multi-layered" judicial process is a tension between the European and the national interpretation of legitimate expectations. The central issue in this literature review can be posed as follows: How is the legitimate expectations principle interpreted and applied in the EU, the Netherlands and in Belgium? How do they interact in the recovery procedure of State aid and what are their mutual influences?
{"title":"The Protection of Legitimate Expectations in the Recovery of State Aid: On the Brink of a European and National Principle?","authors":"J. Gruyters","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3074333","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3074333","url":null,"abstract":"The principle of legitimate expectations is a general principle, recognized by the European Union and a large number of her Member States. However, there is not a semantic uniformity in the European legal order. This literature review will focus from a comparative perspective on the principle of legitimate expectations as it exists in Belgian, Dutch and Union Law, applied to the recovery procedure of State aid, where procedural autonomy is conceded to member states. The corollary of this \"multi-layered\" judicial process is a tension between the European and the national interpretation of legitimate expectations. The central issue in this literature review can be posed as follows: How is the legitimate expectations principle interpreted and applied in the EU, the Netherlands and in Belgium? How do they interact in the recovery procedure of State aid and what are their mutual influences?","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121355467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Single Supervisory Mechanism was introduced to eliminate the common-pool problem and limit uncontrolled lending by national central banks (NCBs). We analyze its effectiveness. Second, we model how, by forbearing and providing refinancing credit, NCBs avoid domestic resolution costs and, instead, share potential losses within the Euro Area. This results in “evergreening” of bad loans. Third, we construct a new evergreening index based on a large worldwide survey administered by the ifo institute. Regressions show evergreening is significantly greater in the Euro Area and where banks are in distress. Finally, greater evergreening accompanies higher growth of NCB-credit and Target2-liabilities.
{"title":"The Euro Area's Common Pool Problem Revisited: Has the Single Supervisory Mechanism Ameliorated Forbearance and Evergreening?","authors":"Sven Steinkamp, A. Tornell, F. Westermann","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3057925","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3057925","url":null,"abstract":"The Single Supervisory Mechanism was introduced to eliminate the common-pool problem and limit uncontrolled lending by national central banks (NCBs). We analyze its effectiveness. Second, we model how, by forbearing and providing refinancing credit, NCBs avoid domestic resolution costs and, instead, share potential losses within the Euro Area. This results in “evergreening” of bad loans. Third, we construct a new evergreening index based on a large worldwide survey administered by the ifo institute. Regressions show evergreening is significantly greater in the Euro Area and where banks are in distress. Finally, greater evergreening accompanies higher growth of NCB-credit and Target2-liabilities.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131519280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After Brexit, therefore from March 29 2019, the UK ceases to be a Member of the EU and looses amongst others the benefit of the 2012 Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, entered into force in 2015, which was an update or recast of the earlier 2000 Regulation, effective since 2002 (hereafter the Regulation). It provides throughout the EU a mutual recognition and enforcement regime of civil and commercial judgments rendered in any EU country, further facilitated by two closely related other Regulations. We must therefore assume that as from that date, UK civil and commercial judgments will no longer be recognized and enforceable under this EU framework in EU Member States and vice versa. It is a serious set back for London as a legal centre. This short paper deals with the consequences and what the alternatives are. A shortened version will appear in the November issue of Butterworth Journal of International Banking and Financial Law (JIBFL).
{"title":"Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments in Europe after Brexit","authors":"J. Dalhuisen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3042180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3042180","url":null,"abstract":"After Brexit, therefore from March 29 2019, the UK ceases to be a Member of the EU and looses amongst others the benefit of the 2012 Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, entered into force in 2015, which was an update or recast of the earlier 2000 Regulation, effective since 2002 (hereafter the Regulation). It provides throughout the EU a mutual recognition and enforcement regime of civil and commercial judgments rendered in any EU country, further facilitated by two closely related other Regulations. We must therefore assume that as from that date, UK civil and commercial judgments will no longer be recognized and enforceable under this EU framework in EU Member States and vice versa. It is a serious set back for London as a legal centre. This short paper deals with the consequences and what the alternatives are. A shortened version will appear in the November issue of Butterworth Journal of International Banking and Financial Law (JIBFL).","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124462221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Grexit was narrowly averted in summer 2015. Nevertheless, the view that Greece might be better off outside the Euro area has never really gone away. Moreover, although Marine Le Pen’s bid for the French presidency was frustrated in May 2017, in Italy a disparate coalition, encompassing Beppe Grillo’s Movimento Cinque Stelle as well as Matteo Salvini’s Lega Nord, has called for a referendum on exiting the Euro. In this context, our argument that Grexit cannot save Greece may be of some relevance to national debates elsewhere in Europe. The paper examines the case for Grexit by offering a detailed account of its likely effects. Its structure is as follows. Section 2 analyses the transition, with the two currencies (old and new) coexisting. Section 3 charts the challenges facing the Greek economy in the short term, after the new national currency has become legal tender. Section 4 assesses prospects in the medium term, with Grexit complete and the new currency drastically devalued. Section 5 reviews the underlying weaknesses of Greece’s growth regime and explains why these are unrelated to the nominal exchange rate. Section 6 discusses the conditions for an investment-led recovery, and shows why tackling them would be more difficult outside the Euro area. Section 7 sums up and concludes.
{"title":"Why Grexit Cannot Save Greece (But Staying in the Euro Area Might)","authors":"Chrysafis Iordanoglou, M. Matsaganis","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3018477","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3018477","url":null,"abstract":"Grexit was narrowly averted in summer 2015. Nevertheless, the view that Greece might be better off outside the Euro area has never really gone away. Moreover, although Marine Le Pen’s bid for the French presidency was frustrated in May 2017, in Italy a disparate coalition, encompassing Beppe Grillo’s Movimento Cinque Stelle as well as Matteo Salvini’s Lega Nord, has called for a referendum on exiting the Euro. In this context, our argument that Grexit cannot save Greece may be of some relevance to national debates elsewhere in Europe. The paper examines the case for Grexit by offering a detailed account of its likely effects. Its structure is as follows. Section 2 analyses the transition, with the two currencies (old and new) coexisting. Section 3 charts the challenges facing the Greek economy in the short term, after the new national currency has become legal tender. Section 4 assesses prospects in the medium term, with Grexit complete and the new currency drastically devalued. Section 5 reviews the underlying weaknesses of Greece’s growth regime and explains why these are unrelated to the nominal exchange rate. Section 6 discusses the conditions for an investment-led recovery, and shows why tackling them would be more difficult outside the Euro area. Section 7 sums up and concludes.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130123590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
markdownabstractEfficiency is often considered a key component of any effective justice system, and a crucial drive for economic growth. A growing body of comparative studies explores how judicial reforms leading to a greater efficiency or effectiveness are positively correlated with economic growth (e.g. Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum, Doing Business Report of the World Bank, Judicial Reforms in Europe Report of the ENCJ, The Economics of Civil Justice of the OECD). At EU level, the European Commission has launched tools like the EU Justice Scoreboard to help the Member States to improve the effectiveness of their justice systems. This instrument, in particular, has been created to help EU Member Stares upholding more effective justice and, in particular, to measure and compare the efficiency of EU justice systems. The belief is that more effective and efficient justice systems will drive stronger economic growth, since “effective justice systems are a prerequisite for an investment and business friendly environment” (EU Justice Scoreboard 2016, p. 1). Efficiency and effectiveness are just two, out of several, basic features of justice systems. An efficient (or effective) justice system could potentially suffer from a lack of an independent judiciary and/or miss fairness of procedures and quality of judicial service. This paper, though, does not want to challenge the efficiency approach on these grounds. The researchers aim to check to what extent the data on efficiency used in academic and political discourses that are provided by the Scoreboard is sound enough to make empirically grounded statements in a valid comparative format among the Member States. In a simplified (but not simplistic) way, efficiency can be defined as the ratio between inputs (resources) and outputs (decisions) of the system. While formally aiming to measure and compare efficiency of Member States’ justice systems, the EU-Justice Scoreboard does not link inputs and outputs indicators to for this purpose. Furthermore, we argue that any attempt to make cross-country comparisons is affected by the comparability of the data sets used for the purpose. Another scholar presenting his proposal at this conference, Marco Fabri, explores the question of the comparability of human resources data (judges) that in labour intensive organisation like courts can be considered as the key production factor (“Too few judges” paper). This paper explores a different area, complementing Fabri’s work. The researchers choose to explore the case-flow indicators presented by the Scoreboard which bases its analysis on the number of incoming, pending and resolved cases. The number of cases a court system manages to handle in a year is often considered emblematic for its efficiency. In Europe, the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe is the primary collector of such data, which is published in the “CEPEJ Evaluation of European Judicial S
{"title":"How Many Cases? Assessing the Comparability of EU Judicial Datasets","authors":"E. A. Onţanu, M. Velicogna, F. Contini","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2990558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2990558","url":null,"abstract":"markdownabstractEfficiency is often considered a key component of any effective justice system, and a crucial drive for economic growth. A growing body of comparative studies explores how judicial reforms leading to a greater efficiency or effectiveness are positively correlated with economic growth (e.g. Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum, Doing Business Report of the World Bank, Judicial Reforms in Europe Report of the ENCJ, The Economics of Civil Justice of the OECD). At EU level, the European Commission has launched tools like the EU Justice Scoreboard to help the Member States to improve the effectiveness of their justice systems. This instrument, in particular, has been created to help EU Member Stares upholding more effective justice and, in particular, to measure and compare the efficiency of EU justice systems. The belief is that more effective and efficient justice systems will drive stronger economic growth, since “effective justice systems are a prerequisite for an investment and business friendly environment” (EU Justice Scoreboard 2016, p. 1). \u0000 \u0000Efficiency and effectiveness are just two, out of several, basic features of justice systems. An efficient (or effective) justice system could potentially suffer from a lack of an independent judiciary and/or miss fairness of procedures and quality of judicial service. This paper, though, does not want to challenge the efficiency approach on these grounds. The researchers aim to check to what extent the data on efficiency used in academic and political discourses that are provided by the Scoreboard is sound enough to make empirically grounded statements in a valid comparative format among the Member States. In a simplified (but not simplistic) way, efficiency can be defined as the ratio between inputs (resources) and outputs (decisions) of the system. While formally aiming to measure and compare efficiency of Member States’ justice systems, the EU-Justice Scoreboard does not link inputs and outputs indicators to for this purpose. Furthermore, we argue that any attempt to make cross-country comparisons is affected by the comparability of the data sets used for the purpose. \u0000 \u0000Another scholar presenting his proposal at this conference, Marco Fabri, explores the question of the comparability of human resources data (judges) that in labour intensive organisation like courts can be considered as the key production factor (“Too few judges” paper). This paper explores a different area, complementing Fabri’s work. The researchers choose to explore the case-flow indicators presented by the Scoreboard which bases its analysis on the number of incoming, pending and resolved cases. The number of cases a court system manages to handle in a year is often considered emblematic for its efficiency. \u0000 \u0000In Europe, the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe is the primary collector of such data, which is published in the “CEPEJ Evaluation of European Judicial S","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128651185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article identifies untapped potential for creative combinations within the sanctions arsenal, but also substantial long-term risks threatening to undermine the very global financial and trading infrastructure that renders Western sanctioning power effective in the first place. It introduces multi-party sanctions against Russia and the Russian response thereto, analysing how sanctions were aided by three unusual prongs: the damage potential of a SWIFT blockade, the devastating effect of the post-2014 oil price drop, and the consideration of using debt sanctions. It then examines defensive measures taken by Russia and others that aim at undermining the effectiveness of future Western sanctions.
{"title":"Sanctions, Real and Imaginary: Experiences with Russia in the Ukraine Crisis","authors":"J. Caytas","doi":"10.37974/ALF.293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37974/ALF.293","url":null,"abstract":"This article identifies untapped potential for creative combinations within the sanctions arsenal, but also substantial long-term risks threatening to undermine the very global financial and trading infrastructure that renders Western sanctioning power effective in the first place. It introduces multi-party sanctions against Russia and the Russian response thereto, analysing how sanctions were aided by three unusual prongs: the damage potential of a SWIFT blockade, the devastating effect of the post-2014 oil price drop, and the consideration of using debt sanctions. It then examines defensive measures taken by Russia and others that aim at undermining the effectiveness of future Western sanctions.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121549442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although it may at first seem unimportant, the structure of excise taxes on cigarettes greatly affects the price of cigarettes, the structure of the consumption, but also the amount of the tax revenue. EU Directive 2011/64/EU prescribes the combination of the specific and the proportional (ad valorem) excise tax on cigarettes. However, Member States independently determine the shares of one or another component in the overall excise tax structure, whereby the EU directive only prescribes the upper and the lower limit. The purpose of this article is to challenge several myths related to the cigarette taxation in the EU. The first one is that an increase of the specific component of the cigarette excise negatively affects the consumption of cigarettes, whereas this does not hold for the proportional component. The second assumption empirically tested in the paper is that an increase of the specific excise increases the government revenue from cigarette excises, whereby this can not be confirmed for the proportional component. Lastly, since both previous hypotheses have been confirmed, we tried to delve into reasons why certain countries – despite obvious advantages of the specific in relation to proportional excise – still predominantly rely on the latter. To this end, we tested the assumption that countries with domestic production of tobacco increasingly use proportional excises to increase the price gap between domestic (usually cheaper) and more expensive (imported/international) brands. The results of the empirical analysis were consistent with this hypothesis and confirmed that domestic tobacco production is a significant determinant of the structure of cigarette excises.
{"title":"The Structure of Cigarette Excises in the EU: From Myths to Reality","authors":"Marko Primorac, Silvija Vlah Jerić","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2951011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2951011","url":null,"abstract":"Although it may at first seem unimportant, the structure of excise taxes on cigarettes greatly affects the price of cigarettes, the structure of the consumption, but also the amount of the tax revenue. EU Directive 2011/64/EU prescribes the combination of the specific and the proportional (ad valorem) excise tax on cigarettes. However, Member States independently determine the shares of one or another component in the overall excise tax structure, whereby the EU directive only prescribes the upper and the lower limit. The purpose of this article is to challenge several myths related to the cigarette taxation in the EU. The first one is that an increase of the specific component of the cigarette excise negatively affects the consumption of cigarettes, whereas this does not hold for the proportional component. The second assumption empirically tested in the paper is that an increase of the specific excise increases the government revenue from cigarette excises, whereby this can not be confirmed for the proportional component. Lastly, since both previous hypotheses have been confirmed, we tried to delve into reasons why certain countries – despite obvious advantages of the specific in relation to proportional excise – still predominantly rely on the latter. To this end, we tested the assumption that countries with domestic production of tobacco increasingly use proportional excises to increase the price gap between domestic (usually cheaper) and more expensive (imported/international) brands. The results of the empirical analysis were consistent with this hypothesis and confirmed that domestic tobacco production is a significant determinant of the structure of cigarette excises.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115847529","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What impact does the European Union (EU) have on good governance Romania? The analysis shows that EU-driven governance reforms improve substantive legality (the alignment of domestic legislation with international best standards), state capacity but weaken formal legality (the inner morality of law), many aspects of impartiality, efficiency-effectiveness and the coherence of state structures and policies. As a result, good governance is undermined. The persistence of bad governance is explained by three fundamental problems of Europeanization: 1. Focus on quantity instead of quality, 2. Partisan empowerment of change agents, 3. Biased assessment of reform progress. The main argument is supported by an indicator-based analysis and qualitative interviews with representatives from the EU and Romania.
{"title":"Europeanization of Good Governance in Romania: Where and Why Does it Fail, and What Can Be Done About it?","authors":"Martin Mendelski","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2926871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2926871","url":null,"abstract":"What impact does the European Union (EU) have on good governance Romania? The analysis shows that EU-driven governance reforms improve substantive legality (the alignment of domestic legislation with international best standards), state capacity but weaken formal legality (the inner morality of law), many aspects of impartiality, efficiency-effectiveness and the coherence of state structures and policies. As a result, good governance is undermined. The persistence of bad governance is explained by three fundamental problems of Europeanization: 1. Focus on quantity instead of quality, 2. Partisan empowerment of change agents, 3. Biased assessment of reform progress. The main argument is supported by an indicator-based analysis and qualitative interviews with representatives from the EU and Romania.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125081673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：