1

EU REGULATION FOR BUSINESS Course Outline

Purpose and background Regulation is by far the most important channel of EU influence on business in Europe. EU regulation has of course to be understood in the wider treaty context of free movement (of goods, services, labour, capital and codified technology), the right of establishment in other Member States, EU (and national) competition policy and the case law of the CJEU on mutual recognition (which cleverly combines national regulatory autonomy - be it, constrained - and free movement). The EU - business interface is dominated by numerous aspects of EU regulation. The purpose of the course is to become a 'good generalist' on EU regulation and its significance, in terms of opportunities and challenges, for business in Europe. There is no point in trying to master every major piece of EU regulation, let alone, all regulation relevant to the EU market. What matters is that students of this course will gain a profound insight about what is “good” and “bad” regulation, how EU regulation has been built up first quantitatively and later gradually improved in quality and how this was achieved. More specifically, students will be capable of appreciating how horizontal and sectoral regulation is based on broad principles, related to the properties of the subject at hand (for instance producer liability or the precautionary principle) and/or the market characteristics (e.g. risk profiles in particular markets). The course is distinctly economic in its perspective and (a good deal of its) literature. Much of the focus will be given to market failures as justifications to regulation, as opposed to plain distributional regulation (which is rare at EU level). This economic focus also implies examining regulation from a cost/benefit perspective. Moreover, students will be familiar with the rough contours of the EU regulatory acquis (including internal market regulation, common policies and other regulatory aspects of the EU institution). It is important to point out that this is not a course on EU law. Deep analysis of the CJEU case law is left to EU lawyers, however some basic understanding of EU law and some key principles and outcomes from the cases of the CJEU are indispensable.

European Economic Studies Department European Economic Integration and Business

Academic Year 2017-2018 Professor: Jacques Pelkmans

Assistant: Salim GADI

2

2

A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is a rational and systematic analysis of regulatory options and their relative costs and benefits prior to EU legislation. The EU is required to perform such RIA before regulating in pursuit of the EU public interest. The RIA provides insight as to possible consequences of proposed EU regulation and as such it provides valuable information for elected politicians and the public (and indeed CoE students). The RIA also makes it possible to hold regulating bodies accountable for their decisions. This approach is in contrast to the more 'intuitive' and loose preparation of EU regulation in the past, let alone, to the numerous political compromises under vetoes before 1987. This more rigorous perspective is broadly favored by European business. The question is: why? The quality of EU regulation is likely to improve over time due to the RIA approach since unnecessary costs for businesses are likely to fall and the EU welfare is expected to increase (cet. paribus), if only because many distortions and inefficient regulatory techniques will no longer pass the legislator so easily. On the whole, ‘better regulation’, including RIAs, are expected to be beneficial for EU economic welfare. The course is complementary to and builds on the general backbone course of professor Beatrice Dument on European Economic Integration, and has been carefully designed not to overlap but for a tiny part. A small part of the course also relies on material covered in the introductory course on EU law for the EEIB students. Organisation The course has 30 hours in class. The compulsory readings have to be read BEFORE class (please, do not underestimate this task!). The recommended readings give students some idea of the wider background, they will help students understand the course slides, and could assist students when writing their master thesis. All EEIB students will do one (short) presentation in class on a limited topic of the course programme, usually in pairs of 2 students every time. No more than 12 minutes presentation, followed by Q&A session. The first presentation is scheduled for the beginning of session 3 (but remains part of session 2) on 1st October. Students will obtain precise (and limited) literature assignments for presentations in a section entitled : ‘Student presentation in 2018’ (see below). Keep in touch with the assistant at least 4 days before. The exam will be around early December 2018. All slides (also, from the students) and all the compulsory literature is required reading for the exam. The exam will take 3 hours and will consist of a blend of analytical, knowledge and essay questions. It counts for 90% of the final grade for the course. 10% of the grade will be accounted for the (short) student presentations in class.

3

- 3 -

Course Outline in 10 sessions Session 1, 13/09/2018 (3 hrs) Regulation (what, why and how) and the EU / business interface 1.1 What is 'regulation'? And what it is not! 1.2 Why do we regulate ? Public & private interest 1.3 Why regulate at EU level ? 1.4 EU regulatory tools 1.5 Types of regulation, including alternative and self-regulation 1.6 Disciplines and constraints of (EU & MS) Regulation 1.7 National regulation and two-tier regulatory reform 1.8 The place of EU regulation 1.9 The EU Institutional Regulatory Acquis 1.10 Regulatory Acquis of EU common policies 1.10.1 Internal market & interface with common policies 1.10.2 Acquis of competition, trade, CAP & transport 1.10.3 Other EU policies & the regulatory acquis 1.11 EU / Business interface wider than regulation Session 2, 14/9/2018 (3 hrs) On quality: towards 'Better EU Regulation' [NOTE, one student presentation on SMEs and better regulation, to be presented on 1st Oct.] 2.1 A public-interest driven EU framework for proper regulation (see for private-interest driven lobbying strategies of business, course by Greenwood) 2.2 Regulatory Impact Assessment : logic and sequence 2.3 Regulatory reform at EU level since the 'Old Approach' 2.4 Principles governing EU regulation 2.5 The 'Better Regulation' strategy of the Union 2.5.1 Outline and context 2.5.2. RIAs, trends and quality 2.5.3. Cutting red-tape and 'simplification' 2.5.4. A first assessment : impact and economic benefits 2.5.5 REFIT, a revival of Better regulation ? 2.6 How the (unnecessary) 'regulatory burden' of SMEs is tackled. 2.7 Is the EU overregulated? Are ‘cumulative costs’ of EU REG an issue? Session 3, 1/10/2018 (3 hrs) Mutual recognition : market access under diversity [NOTE, one student presentation on a simple RIA on General Food labeling, and one student presentation on 2 CJEU mutual recognition cases, in fact, facilitating intra-EU market access for business ] 3.1 Mutual recognition, a reminder (see also the EEI course) 3.2 Does mutual recognition remove regulatory barriers? Goods 3.2.1. A cost/benefit analysis of mutual recognition 3.2.2. Examples from case-law and business experience 3.2.3. Mutual recognition in the 2008 goods package (also called NLF)

4

- 4 -

3.2.4 Recent assessment of MR in goods (2015 and 2017) 3.3 Does mutual recognition remove regulatory barriers? Services 3.3.1. Mutual recognition in services after Saeger (case '91) 3.3.2. Regulatory mutual recognition: MR, host CC, home CC and the origin principle 3.3.3. The origin principle and (non) equivalence (TV dir, e-comm. dir, Bolkestein draft of Services dir. In 2004) 3.3.4 Home country control: road transport and financial services 3.3.5 Blending Host / Home CC: conformity assessment services and temporary cross-border services (posted workers Dir. 96/71) (also session 8) 3.4 Mutual recognition for professionals 3.4.1 The old and new approaches + Wouters (case) 3.4.2 The economics of anti-competitive (self) regulation and the mutilated I.M. for professional services 3.4.3 Greater mobility due to automatic diploma recognition (architects / health), better recognition due to the 2013 prof. Quali.s dir. and the evaluation of national prof. qual.s rules [ COM(2013) 676] 3.4.4 2017 Services package: proportionality tests, Mutual Evaluation and the PRO-SERV indicator of regulatory restrictiveness of MS professional services Session 4, 2/10/2018 (3 hrs) Horizontal EU regulation : principles and scope [NOTE, one student presentation on the 1973 chocolate directive (73/241/EEC), one student presentation on the precautionary principle, exemplified in GMO regulation] 4.1 Horizontal in EU risk regulation and horizontal in removing IM barriers /distortions 4.2 The precautionary principle (= PP) 4.2.1 Risk versus hazard, a fundamental debate 4.2.2. What exactly is the precautionary principle ? 4.2.3. PP’s problematic nature [EU vs. US? how open-ended? ; a curious logic? How costly ?] 4.2.4. Actual practice: EU and US not so different 4.2.5 EU examples : GMOs (students) and ‘vulcanic ash’ (by JP) 4.3 EU product liability 4.4 Horizontal EU regulation removing barriers / distortions 4.4.1. Open and competitive public procurement 4.4.2. Intellectual property rights (basics) Session 5, 18/10/2016 (3 hrs) EU sectoral regulation (1): horizontal logic in 5 key areas [NOTE, two student presentations: one on Standardisation & company strategies (incl. SMEs), another one on a specific (energy-intensive) industry sector in the ETS (emission trading) such as ceramics or glass – these two sectors have detailed studies by CEPS] 5.1 Sector-specific and horizontal logic in sector regulation 5.2 Food regulation: the new approach of horizontal directives 5.3 The General Safety of Goods directive 2001/95 5.4 New Approach logic & the New Legislative Framework 5.5 Consumer protection and the 2011 Consumer Rights dir. 2011/83 5.6 Climate change regulation and the ETS

5

- 5 -

Session 6, 19/10/2018 (3 hrs) EU sectoral regulation (2) : comparing heavily regulated sectors [NOTE, one student presentation on REACH (chemical regulation) and what it means for business; another student representation on the ideas behind CARS-21, and its 2012+2014 reports] 6.1 Heavy EU regulation, with or without centralisation /Agency(e.g. supervision / type approval) ? 6.2 Food regulation : with an EU (risk assessment) Agency, EFSA 6.3 Medicines : how mutual recognition and the I.M. induced the EMA 6.4 Chemicals : burden-of-proof for business ; centralising supervision of risk assessment in ECHA 6.5 Motor vehicles : pre-market type approval ; beyond the Old Approach – towards flexibility, (more) consistency (cf. CARS-21) and extending it worldwide via UN-ECE Session 7, 1/11/2018 (3 hrs) EU regulation of services [NOTE, one student presentation on intra-EU cross-border e-Commerce and what the Digital Single Market should do about it; note there is an Inquiry by DG COMP on e-commerce] 7.1 The seven ways of regulating EU services (see also 3.3 and 3.4) 7.2 Horizontal Service dir. 2006/123 : free movement, MR and minimal EU regulation 7.3 Regulation of financial markets 7.3.1. Prudential and systemic risks and the functional design of an EU regime 7.3.2. What is ‘better’ in the 4th EU generation of financial regulation? 7.3.3. How much regulatory centralisation is optimal for financial markets? 7.3.4 How the EU banking Union works (and what can be improved) 7.4 Transport regulation (non-networked), basics 7.5 Networked transport services: EU air & rail safety agencies 7.6 EU Telecoms liberalisation : how much I.M. and how ‘mini’ its Agency ? 7.7 Electricity & gas regulation and ACER (basics) 7.8 Regulatory complexity in the EU Digital Market (or, DSM) Session 8, 2/11/2018 (3 hrs) EU regulation and the 'European Social Model': meaning for business? [NOTE, one student presentation on the Ruefert case of posted workers in Germany] 8.1 What is the European Social Model? 8.2 The EU Social Acquis is fairly limited 8.3 The regulatory meaning of the EU social acquis 8.3.1. The internal market for labour (free movement, immigration) 8.3.2. Posted workers and temporary services (recent case-law, incl. Ruefert) and the Enforcement directive ; the revised Dir (2018) with host country wages ! 8.3.3. Minimum harmonisation at modest level (under selective vetoes) 8.3.4. Health & safety in the workplace (old approach?) 8.3.5. EU gender acquis 8.3.6 Social Dialogue and the ensuing sectoral agreements / directives 8.4 The 2014 Enforcement directive for posted workers and the EU Labour Authority 8.5 Money splinters: do the Social and Globalisation Funds help labour adjustment ? 8.6 Beyond the I.M. : what does it mean to go for an EU Social Union?

6

- 6 -

Session 9, 15/11/2018 (3 hrs) Why Subsidiarity and two-tier regulation matter for European business [NOTE, one student presentation on subsidiarity and proportionality as incorporated in the July 2018 Timmermans report, followed by class debate; this should take, altogether, some 40 minutes or so] 9.1 Shrinking national regulatory autonomy ? 9.1.1 Due to free movement / establishment (examples) or regulatory competition 9.1.2 Due to EU regulation (examples) 9.2 Ring-fencing national regulatory powers and business uncertainty 9.2.1. The explicit division (limitation) of powers in the (new ) treaty 9.2.2. The subsidiarity tests in the EU and national circuits 9.2.3. The subsidiarity ‘grid’ in the Timmermans report 9.2.4 Fragmentation : regulatory heterogeneity (costs) vs. diversity (benefits) 9.3 Shifting boundaries of what formally are national powers ? [education, public health, media, dual purpose goods, social services, social housing ] 9.4 Does the internal market functioning (i.e. business opportunities) hinge on national regulatory performance ? 9.4.1 National regulatory performance: empirical analysis 9.4.2 Lisbon (national) reforms and potential economic gains 9.4.3 Double-dividend reforms : I.M. & eurozone (shock adjustment) 9. 4.4 How structural reforms (imposed via the debt crisis) may improve GIPS markets Session 10, 16/11/2018 (3 hrs) Lingering issues in EU risk regulation 10.1 EU risk regulation and Regulatory Impact Assessment, some technical issues 10.1.1. More on costs of EU regulation 10.1.2 More on benefits and their monetary value 10.1.3. Selected economic issues underlying RIAs 10.2 The Guidelines of RIAs revisited (see also session 2) 10.3 Cumulative costs assessment : do sectors suffer from too much EU REG? 10.4 Risk assessment in the EU and the role of ‘science’ 10.5 Does EU risk regulation enable or disable innovation ? ***************

7

- 7 -

STUDENT PRESENTATIONS in 2018 General Information concerning the presentations All EEIB students will do one (short) presentation in class on a limited topic of the course programme. No more than 12 minutes, followed by Q and A. Students have precise literature assignments for presentations. Keep in touch with the academic assistant for advice on the presentations; Hand in the slides (or a draft version) at least two days before the session; Do not forget to mention your sources on the last slide! Maximum 12 slides plus bibliography.

For every matter concerning the presentations please contact XXXXX ( + email) Session 2 14 Sept 2018 [ but presented early in session 3, 1st Oct 2018]

1. Presentation: “Does 'EU better regulation' help SMEs?” On quality: towards 'Better EU Regulation'. There was much talk about SME policies in the past. Yet with the EU “better regulation” agenda, things seem to improve. In which sense and to what extent? Look at the Small Business Act, Cutting Red tape, SME provisions in the RIA guidelines, Proposals of the Stoiber High level group on Best Practice regulatory simplification. Literature:

High Level Group on Regulatory Simplification (Stoiber), 2011, Europe can do better, Best practice report on EU regulatory simplification, Nov. 2011, check ec.europa.eu/gds/secretariat_general/admin_burden/…/best_practice_report_en.htm

European Commission, 2008, Think small first – a Small Business Act for Europe, COM (2008) 394 0f 19 June 2008

European Commission (2017), Annual report on European SMEs 2016/2017, 22 November, esp. Exec. Summary and chapters 1 and 2

COM(2013) 122 of 7 March 2013, Smart regulation - responding to the needs of SMEs

SWD (2016(400) of 25 Oct 2016, Regulatory fitness and Performance programme [REFIT] and the 10 priorities of the Commission ; this doc is attached to a Part 1 merely giving a Summary ; the Part 2 is the analytical survey of no less than 470 pp. ; both doc.s are attached to COM (2016) 710 of 25 Oct, The COM Work Programme 2017 ; the big SWD Part 2 is a reference doc when you search for examples (not meant to “read”)

8

- 8 -

Session 3 1 Oct 2018

2. Presentation: “What does a RIA look like? The example of the General Food labelling draft Directive”

Which logic does the RIA follow? (The six steps)

Literature: RIA: “Impact Assessment report on General food labelling issues”, SEC(2008) 40

final, http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/publications/ia_general_food_labelling.pdf

[ this simple example has been chosen because it does not require product-specific knowledge, hence, the student can focus on the RIA steps]

3. Presentation: “Two CJEU mutual recognition cases” Mutual recognition: market access under diversity. Cases: Kelderman BV (Case 130/81) and Purity requirement for beer (Case 178/84) Go through the cases; How does the court approach MR? Summarize the logic. What does the court say concerning proportionality/necessity/legitimacy?

Literature:

The two cases.

Session 4 2 Oct 2018

4. Presentation: “The 1973 chocolate directive (73/241/EEC)” On quality: towards 'Better EU Regulation'. How does the directive create rigidities, blocking innovation? Does it justifiably limit the food choice (e.g. what ‘internalities’ justify it)? How does it offer possibilities for lobbyists? Is this about health and safety? Can this directive be maintained after the M.R. revolution in food in the EU of the 1980s? NOTE : the presentation is thus about the old chocolate directive, not the current one from 2000. See also the large literature list of the course. Literature:

Directive 73/241/EEC (and consult before with the assistant and the professor)

5. Presentation: “The precautionary principle: The example of GMO regulation” Horizontal EU regulation: principles and scope. Give a very short overview of the EU regulation on GMOs and illustrate how risk assessment and a sound use of the precautionary principle failed because of non-scientific-based (irrational) societal fears, a lack of evidence, political matters, and intrinsic complexity of some GMO-related issues (ex. Co-existence).

Literature: Lofstedt, R. (2014), The precautionary principle in the EU: why a formal review is

long overdue, Risk management, Vol. 16,3, pp. 137 - 163 European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (2008), Scientific and technical

contribution to the development of an overall health strategy in the area of

9

- 9 -

GMOs – Executive Summary http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/jrc_20080910_gmo_study_en.pdf

Corti Varela, J. (2010) : Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Conventional and Organic Products in the European Market : State of the Art Report, European Journal of Risk Regulation 1/2010

EPEC, 2011, Evaluation of the EU legislative framework [ on GMOs, etc.], March, see http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf

EASAC [EU science associations] (2013), Planting the future, http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/Report/Planting_the_Future/EASAC_Planting_the_Future_LAY_SUMMARY.pdf [ authoritative non-technical report firmly rejecting precaution on GMOs on the basis of science [22 national science associations in Europe] and showing its intra-EU and global costs]

Science for environment policy (2017), Future brief – The precautionary principle: decision-making under uncertainty, September , issue 18 (published by the COM but not written by the COM), http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy

Session 5 18 Oct 2018

6. Presentation: “Standardisation and company strategies” EU sectoral regulation (1): horizontal logic in 5 key areas. Show how technical standards are not just important to European risk regulation under the new approach, but also – indeed, much more - for companies independently of regulation. Literature:

Hesser/Feilzer/de Vries (2007): Standardisation in Companies and Markets, pp.257-307, 455-509, 557 – 601

Amalia Foukaki (2017), Corporate standardization Management, a case study of the automotive industry, Ph. D. Lund Univ.y , portal.research.lu.se/ws/files/21522119/Corporate_Standardisation_Management_A-Case-Study_of_the_Automotive_Industry_Dissertation_2017.pdf ; only chapters 1, 2 and 9

7. Presentation: “The ETS and its repercussions for a specific industry sector” Describe and understanding the ETS is easy, the important issue is that this is not about cost/benefit but about cost effectiveness. A prominent European policy issue is the impact on sectors, as different sectors have different performance (and costs). Some sectors, if under the ETS, could become uncompetitive (aluminium, cement). Explain in this respect carbon leakage.

Literature:

• European Commission (2016) Carbon leakage, basic info page , see http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/allowances/leakage/index_en.htm (last accessed on 7 Sept 2016), and the preparation of the Carbon Leakage List 2021 – 2030 via the “Inception Impact Assessment”, to be downloaded from the page https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-5046070_eu

Commission Decision 2014/746/EU of 27 Oct 2014 on the list of sectors subject to carbon leakage, OJEU L 308/114 and further, 29 Oct 2014

10

- 10 -

(radical position) T. Wyns & M. Axelson, 2016, Decarbonising Europe’s energy intensive industries, May, Brussels, Institute for European Studies (VUB), commissioned by carbonmarketwatch.org

A. Marcu, C. Egenhofer, S. Roth & W. Stoefs, 2014, Carbon leakage: options for the EU, March, CEPS Special Report, March, see www.ceps.eu

Carbon Market Watch (2017), Carbon Market Watch ‘s response to the Inception Impact Assessment of the carbon leakage list for the period 2012 – 2030, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-5046070/feedback/F7633_en?p_id=121748 (only 2 pages, very useful summary)

A. Renda and 19 co-authors (2017), Cumulative cost assessment of the EU ceramics industry, August, https://www.cps.eu/publications/cumulative-cost-assessment-eu-ceramics-industry

A. Renda and 20 co-authors (2017), Cumulative cost assessment of the EU Glass industry, August, https://www.ceps.eu/publications/cumulative-cost-assessment-eu-glass-industry

Session 6 19 Oct 2018 8. Presentation: “What does REACH mean for business?” EU sectoral regulation (2) : comparing heavily regulated sectors. Focus on the economic issue and impact on business. You can leave aside technical and procedural details. Literature:

CSES, 2012, Interim Evaluation of REACH, 30 March, on: ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/reach/review2012/market-final-report_en.pdf

Gerhard Angerer, Ralf Nordbeck and Christian Sartorius (2008): Impacts on industry of Europe's emerging chemicals policy REACH, Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 86, Issue 4, March 2008, Pages 636-647

Pelkmans, J., L. Schrefler & I. Gubbels (2013), The consequences of REACH for SMEs, report for the ITRE CTee of the EP, on www.europarl.europa.eu/studies ; a shorter version is a CEPS Policy Brief, entitled : REACH, killerwhale for SMEs ? , see www.ceps.eu

ECHA’s REACH 2018 roadmap, Jan. 2015, Helsinki/Brussels (shows the many requirements for SMEs to register smaller tonnages of substances; attempts to be SME-friendly) https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13552/reach_roadmap_2018_web_final_en.pdf

COM (2018)116 of 5 March 2018, Commission general report on the operation of REACH and review of certain elements, conclusions and actions ; see also the detailed SWD (2018) 58 of 5 March 2018, COM general report on the operation of REACH and review of certain elements, Conclusions and actions https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/reach_eval_swd_2018_58_1.pdf (suggested reading pp. 1 – 20 and pp. 126 – 132) ; see also MEMO (COM) on REACH Review of 5 March 2018 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-1363_en.htm (good summary)

Session 7 1 Nov 2018 9. Presentation “E-commerce cross-border services in the EU and the Digital Agenda”

EU regulation of services.

11

- 11 -

Internet can potentially be a driver in completing the Internal Market. Show whether B2B, B2C and C2C e-commerce work properly at a cross-border level. Which are the main problems preventing its development? How the European Commission is addressing these problems?.

Literature:

SWD(2013) 153 of 23 April 2013, E-commerce Action Plan 2012 – 2015, State of

Play 2013 European Commission (2015), Anti-trust: Commission launches e-commerce

sector inquiry – factsheet, http://europa.eu/press-release_MEMO-15-4922_en.htm

COM (2015) 192 of 6 May 2015, A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM(2017)229 of 10 May 2017, Final report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry SWD(2017)154 of 10 May 2017, accompanying document to COM(2017)229 [see

above] ; extensive analysis of 298 pages ; www.ec.europa.eu/competition/anti-trust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf ; short MEMO to start with : http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-1262_en.htm

Session 8 2 Nov 2018 10. Presentation: “The Rueffert case on posted workers in Germany” EU regulation and the 'European Social Model': meaning for business? The Posted Workers directive 96/71 is based on the “host country control” principle. Therefore, it greatly reduces the wage incentive for labour mobility [explain the “therefore”]. However, three countries used to have no minimum wage legislation: here, temporary cross-border provision of services might be contracted at much lower wages. In Rueffert, the Court explicitly allows this to happen which undermines German collective wage agreements. Also note the conflict between the Advocate General and the Court. [note : Germany had no minimum wage law in 2006 when the case was building up ; today, it does have general minimum wages]. Reflect, when preparing, on (i) would Rueffert still be possible today in Germany ? ; (ii) the Posted Workers dir. 96/71 and its 2014 Enforcement dir. are being revised; would Rueffert remain applicable ? Literature:

Dirk Rueffert v Land Niedersachen Case C-346/06, CJEU + Celle Court (in Niedersachsen) + AG of the CJEU How Social the single market ?, CEPS Commentary, 13 April 2010 (www.ceps.eu ) Check websites of ETUC and ETUI M. Barslund, M. Busse & F. De Wispelaere (2017), Posted workers – for some it

matters, CEPS Policy Insights 2017/36, Oct Z. Darvas (2017), Revision of the posted workers Dir. Misses the point, Bruegel

Blog, http://bruegel.org/2017/10/revision...

Session 9 15 Nov 2018 11. Presentation : “Discussing the Timmermans Report on Active Subsidiarity” Why subsidiarity and two-tier regulation matter for business. Student(s) take the lead with one presentation here but this will be followed by class discussion – therefore the ENTIRE class has to read the Timmermans report as quoted below, before class. The report is about subsidiarity and proportionality in the EU, especially as applied in EU regulation.

Literature:

12

- 12 -

Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and ‘Doing less more efficiently’, Active Subsidiarity – a new way of working, 10 July 2018 (Timmermans report); https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/report-task-force-subsidiarity-proportionality-doing-less-more-efficiently_0.pdf [only pp. 1 – 21]

Summarize the report in max. 4 slides Select two examples from Annex VI (pp. 35 – 41), in direct consultation with Prof.

Pelkmans and the academic assistant [Annex VI is about EU legislation and proposals where – possibly – the application of subsidiarity & proportionality should be done ‘better’] ; select cases with relevance for business

Class discussion can then follow

Session 10 [no student presentation]

13

- 13 -

Compulsory readings Session 1 13 Sept. 2018 Regulation (what, why and how) and the EU / business interface Compulsory Readings

• Baldwin, R.,Cave, M. & M. Lodge (2012): Understanding Regulation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapters 2 (Why regulate?) and 7 (Regulatory Strategies).

• Pelkmans, J. (2013), The Economics of Single Market Regulation, in Tovias, A. & Verdun, A. (eds.): Mapping European economic integration, Palgrave Macmillan; read the version as the BEEP Briefing of the ECON dept., no. 25

Session 2 14 Sept. 2018 On quality: towards 'Better EU Regulation' Compulsory Readings

• Renda, A., L. Schrefler, G. Luchetta & R. Zavatti (2013), Assessing the costs and benefits of regulation, study for the Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/131210_cba_study_sg_final.pdf , pp. 7 – 21 (introduction, sections 1.1 and 1.2) only

• Hahn, R. and Tetlock, P. (2008), Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions?, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 22/1, pp. 67-84.

Session 3 1 Oct. 2018 Mutual recognition: market access under diversity Compulsory Readings

• Pelkmans, J. (2012), Mutual recognition: economic and regulatory logic in goods and services, in: T. Eger & B. Schaefer, ed.s, Research Handbook on the Economics of EU Law, Cheltenham, E. Elgar

• COM(2016) 822 of 20 Jan 2017, Proposal …directive… on a proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions,

• European Parliament (2018), Briefing, Proportionality test for new national regulations for professions, 8 June, PE 614.606

Session 4 2 Oct. 2018 Horizontal EU regulation: principles and scope Compulsory Readings

• Lofstedt, R. (2014), The precautionary principle in the EU: why a formal review is long overdue, Risk Management Vol. 16 no. 3, pp. 137 - 163

• Weatherill, S. (2005): EU Consumer Law and Policy, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar, chapter 6 (Product liability), pp. 135 – 148.

• Lofstedt, R. (2011), Risk versus Hazards, how to regulate in the 21st century, European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 2/2, pp. 149-168.

14

- 14 -

Session 5 18 Oct. 2018 EU sectoral regulation (1): horizontal logic in 5 key areas Compulsory Readings

• Bernauer, T. and Caduff, L. (2006), Food Safety and the Structure of the European Food Industry, in: Ansell and Vogel (eds.), What’s the Beef? The Contested Governance of European Food Safety, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 81 – 96 ; for a quick overview of the EU Food law today, see EP, EPRS (2017) – author Tarja Laaninen – The EU’s General Food Law Regulation, January, PE 595.906

• Pelkmans, J. (2009), Co-regulation removing technical barriers, a panacea for the single market, unpublished paper for ELEA, Bruges, College of Europe, January; update will be made available to the EEIB students

• Twigg-Flesner, C. (2010), Time to Do the Job Properly — The Case for a New Approach to EU Consumer Legislation, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 33, 4, pp. 355-375, December ; in order to get a quick and rich overview of EU Consumer law of today – as much has changed and will be altered soon – check EP(2018), Briefing- Revision of consumer law directives (including injunctions): the ‘new Deal for Consumers’, April, PE 615.672

Session 6 19 Oct. 2018 EU sectoral regulation (2) : comparing heavily regulated sectors Compulsory Readings

• Gubbels, J., J. Pelkmans & L. Schrefler (2013), REACH : a killer whale for SMEs?, CEPS Policy Brief no, 307, December, see www.ceps.eu ; together with a basic explanation of REACH in : O. Fuchs (2009), REACH; a new paradigm for the management of chemical risks, Paris, IFRI, Health & Environmental report no. 4, pp. 9 – 18, see www.ifri.org

• Kanavos, P. and Costa-Font, J. (2005), Pharmaceutical parallel trade in Europe: stakeholder and competition effects, Economic Policy, Vol. 20, Issue 44, pp. 751- 798.

• European Commission (2012), CARS-21 – Final report – On the competitiveness and sustainable growth of the automotive industry in the EU, Brussels, CARS-21 High Level Group, 6 June, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/cars-21-final-report-2012-en.pdf NOTE : Executive Summary only ( pp. 3 – 10); CARS 2020 report of the High Level Group, Oct. 2014, Key deliverables only (pp. 1 – 12) www.ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/7143/attachments/1/translations

Session 7 1 Nov. 2018 EU regulation of services Compulsory Readings

• Mustilli, F. & J. Pelkmans (2012), Securing EU growth from services, CEPS Special Report, no. 67, www.ceps.eu

• Mustilli, F. & J. Pelkmans (2013), Access barriers to services markets – mapping, tracing, understanding and measuring, CEPS Special Report no. 77, June ; ONLY sections 4 AND 5, pp. 17 – 53.

• Erik Van Der Marel (2017), Economic effects of reform in professional services, Briefing, IMCO/EP, July, PE 607.337, pp. 12

15

- 15 -

Session 8 2 Nov. 2018 EU regulation and the 'European Social Model': meaning for business? Compulsory Readings

• F. Vandenbroucke (2014), The case for a European Social Union, Brussels, Egmont, European Policy Brief no. 23, March, www.egmontinstitute.be

• European Commission (2017), Reflection paper on the Social Dimension of Europe, 26 April

• Pelkmans, J. (2010), How Social the Single Market ?, CEPS Commentary, Brussels, CEPS, www.ceps.eu, 13 April 2010

Session 9 15 Nov. 2018 Why and how Subsidiarity and two-tier regulation matter for business (part 1) Compulsory Readings

• Pelkmans, J. (2005), Subsidiarity between Law and Economics, College of Europe Research Papers in Law, 1/2005.

• J.M. Fournier (2015), The heterogeneity of product market regulations, OECD Economics dept. WP no. 1182, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js7xhxwrnwd-en

Session 10 16 Nov. 2018 Compulsory readings

• R. Lofstedt (2011), same as for session 4; • L. Schrefler & J. Pelkmans (2014), Better use of science for better EU regulation, European

Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 5, 3; • J. Pelkmans & A. Renda (2014), Does EU regulation hinder or stimulate innovation?, CEPS

Special Report no. 96, November 2014, see www.ceps.eu • European Commission (2018), Quantification in Commission Impact Assessments and

Evaluations, Report of the RSB/SG/JRC Working Group, 20 March, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/report-of-the-rsb-sg-jrc-working-group-for -publication_en.pdf : the report (5 pp.) and Annex A2 (Quantification template) (pp. 9 – 15)

16

- 16 -

Recommended Literature Session 1 Regulation (what, why and how)

• Alesina, A./ Angeloni, I. and Schuknecht, L. (2005), What does the European Union do?, Public Choice, Vol. 123, pp. 275 – 319. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/files/What%20does%20european%20union%20do_PublicChoiche.pdf

• Craig and de Búrca (eds.) (2008), EU Law – Text, Cases and Materials, fourth edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 155 – 57 (Subsidiarity and Proportionality), pp. 88 – 95 (Internal Community Competence), pp. 83 – 86 (Regulations, Directives) and pp. 277 – 279 (The Legal Effects of Regulations and Decisions).

• Ogus, A. I. (1994), Regulation – Legal Form and Economic Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press, chapters 1 (Introduction) and 2 (The Context of Regulation: The Market and Private Law.

• Kurcz, B. (2001), Harmonisation by means of Directives, European Business Law Review, Vol. 12, pp. 287-307.

• Baldwin, Cave & Lodge, 2012, chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 • Armstrong, M. and Sappington, D. (2005), Recent Developments in the Theory of Regulation,

in Armstrong, M. and Porter, R., North Holland (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Volume 3, pp. 1-112 Very long, technical and detailed article on market regulation (esp. network industries)

EU's Regulatory Acquis & EU / Business interface

• Johnson, D. and Turner, C. (2006), European Business, London: Routledge, second edition, chapters 2 (The Integration Imperative: Theory and Practice) and 4 (The Single European Market: the Bedrock of European Integration), pp. 24 – 57 and 83 - 102.

• Gormley, L.W. (2006), The internal market: history and evolution, in Shuibhne, Niamh Nic (ed.): Regulating the Internal Market, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar, pp. 14 – 28.

• Weatherill, S. (2006), Supply of and demand for internal market regulation: strategies, preferences and interpretation, in Shuibhne, Niamh Nic (ed.): Regulating the Internal Market, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar, pp. 29 – 60.

…on common policies • Wilks, S. (2010): Competition Policy: Challenge and Reform, in Wallace, H./ Wallace, W./

Pollack, M.A. (eds.): Policy-Making in the European Union, fifth edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133 – 153.

• Roederer-Rynning, C. (2010): Agricultural Policy: Constrained Reforms, in Wallace, H./ Wallace, W./ Pollack, M.A. (eds.): Policy-Making in the European Union, fifth edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181 – 203.

• Woolcock, S. (2010): Trade Policy: From Uruguay to Doha and Beyond, in Wallace, H./ Wallace, W./ Pollack, M.A. (eds.): Policy-Making in the European Union, fifth edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 381 – 398.

• Johnson, D. and Turner, C. (2006), European Business, second edition, London: Routledge, chapter 10 (Transport Policy: Towards efficient and effective mobility), pp. 211 – 233.

17

- 17 -

…on network industries • Geradin, D. (2006): Twenty years of liberalisation of NWI in the EU: Where do we go now? ;

Inaugural Lecture Tilburg Univ., Nov. 3, 2006 • Cowan, S. (2006), Network Regulation, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 22,

Number 2, pp. 248 – 259. http://ejscontent.ebsco.com/ContentServer.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Foxrep%2Eoxfordjournals%2Eorg%2Fcgi%2Freprint%2F22%2F2%2F248%2Epdf

…on agencies and delegation • Nicolaïdes, P. (2005): Regulation of Liberalised Markets: A New Role for the State? (or How to

Induce Competition among Regulators), in Geradin, D., Muñoz, R. and Petit, N. (eds.), Regulation through Agencies in the EU, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar., pp. 23 – 43.

• Coen, D. and Thatcher, M. (2008), Network Governance and Multi-level Delegation: European Networks of Regulatory Agencies, Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 28, Issue 1, pp. 49 – 71.

• Scott, C. (2005), Agencies for European Regulatory Governance: A regimes Approach, in Geradin, D., Muñoz, R. and Petit, N. (eds.): Regulation through Agencies in the EU, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar, pp. 67 – 87.

Session 2: On quality: towards 'Better EU Regulation' …on “better regulation”, Commission key documents (since 2017) http://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/better-regulation-why-and-how_en

European Commission (2009) Impact Assessment Guidelines: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf [but do note that, in 2015, the guidelines have been modified ; see below SWD (2015) 111

• European Commission (2009), Third strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union, COM(2009) 15: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0015:FIN:EN:PDF

• European Commission (2009), Reducing administrative burdens in the European Union – 2008 progress report and 2009 outlook, COM(2009) 16: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0016:FIN:EN:PDF

• COM(2010) 543, Smart regulation in the EU, 8 October 2010 • COM (2013) 686 of 2 Oct 2013, Strengthening the foundations of Smart regulation –

improving evaluation • COM (2013) 685 of 2 Oct 2013, Annex [to COM (2013) 686], Regulatory fitness and

performance (REFIT); results and next steps • COM (2014) 368 of 18 June 2014, REFIT : state of play and outlook • SWD (2014) 192 of 18 June 2014, REFIT: state of play and outlook, SCOREBOARD • COM (2015) 215 of 19 May 2015, Better regulation for better results, an EU agenda • SWD (2015) 111 of 19 May 2015, Better regulation guidelines (pp. 91);

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regfulation/guidelines/ug_chap3_en.htm • SWD (2015) 110 of 19 May 2015, Regulatory fitness and performance programme [REFIT],

state of play and outlook,

18

- 18 -

• Communication to the Commission [ note : not to Council or EP], C (2015) 3262, Regulatory Scrutiny Board: mission, tasks and staff, 19 May 2015

• Regulatory Scrutiny Board (2017), Annual Report 2016, February, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2016-rsb-report_en.pdf

• REFIT >> http://ec.europa.eu/info/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less_en

• European Commission (2016), Regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT) and the 10 priorities of the Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cwp_2017_refit_scoreboard_en.pdf (this is the general linkage with the 10 COM priorities in a summary)

• The full REFIT report is 470 pp. ! ; it is found in a SWD (2016) 400 of 25 Oct 2016, called Part 2 of the same report ; https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cwp_2017_refit_scoreboard_2016_en.pdf

• the source for all RIAs already made is http://ec.europa.eu/info/law-making-process-/planning-and-proposing-law/impact-assessments_en

…on “better regulation”, secondary literature:

• A. Renda (2015), Too good to be true ? A quick assessment of the European Commission’s new Better Regulation package, CEPS Special Report no. 108, May

• A. Renda (2017), Introducing EU reduction targets on regulatory costs: a feasibility study, CEPS Research report no. 2017/10, July, see www.ceps.eu

• Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis, 2010, The economic effects of the regulatory burden, see ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/industrial-competitiveness/competitiveness-analysis/seminars/files/bbs_falkenhal_report_en.pdf

• Radaelli, C. (2007): Whither better Regulation for the Lisbon Agenda?, Journal of European Public Policy 14, Issue 2, pp. 190 – 207.

• Renda, A., 2011, Law and economics in the RIA world, Antwerp / Cambridge, Intersentia • UK Government (2008), 25 Ideas for simplifying EU law, London, Better Regulation Executive,

July; www.bre.berr.gov.uk • UK Business Task Force (2013), CUT EU RED TAPE, October, {on 30 EU laws and better REG

based on ‘COMPETE’}, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploas/attachment_data/file/249969/TaskForce-report-15-October.pdf

• Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation (2001): Final Report, http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/documents/mandelkern_report.pdf

• Haythornthwaite, R. (2007), Better Regulation in Europe, in: Weatherill, S. (ed.), Better Regulation, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 19 – 26.

• Lynch-Fannon, I. (2009), Regulation and Competitiveness: A Mysterious and Difficult Relationship in the European Union, European Law Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, January 2009, pp. 98–120.

• Cordova-Novion, C. (2007): Evaluating the Impact of Regulations and Regulatory Policies on the Private Sector, Jacobs and Associates, Lima, Peru, 24 May 2007 http://www.regulatoryreform.com/pdfs/Evaluating%20Regulatory%20Impacts%20Cordova%202007.pdf

• Torriti, J. (2007), The Standard Cost Model: When ‘Better Regulation’ Fights against Red Tape, in: Weatherill, S. (ed.), Better Regulation, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 83 – 106.

19

- 19 -

• UK Better Regulation Task Force (2005), Routes to better regulation, a guide to alternatives to classic regulation, London, Whitehall, December http://eesc.europa.eu/smo/prism/images/PDFs/routes_to_better_regulation.pdf

• M. Emerson (2013), The Dutch wish-list for a lighter regulatory touch from the EU, CEPS Commentary, 1 July, www.ceps.eu

• E. Van Den Abeele (2014), The EU’s REFIT strategy : a new bureaucracy in the service of competitiveness?, Brussels, ETUI Working Paper 2014.05

…on Better regulation and SMEs • European Commission (2008), “Think small first” - A 'Small Business Act' for Europe, COM

(2008) 394 of 19 June 2008 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0394:FIN:EN:PDF

• COM (2013)122, Smart regulation – responding to the needs of SMEs, 7 March 2013 • SWD (2013) 60 of 7 March 2013, Monitoring and consultation on smart regulation for SMEs • Kitching, J. (2007), Is Less More? Better Regulation and the Small Enterprise, in: Weatherill, S.

(ed.), Better Regulation, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 155 – 174. • Copenhagen Economics (2011), Barriers and best practices in SME Test Implemenation,

report for the ITRE Ctee, EP, July, www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies.do?language=EN

…on RIAs

• Meeuwise, A. (2008), Impact assessment in EU lawmaking, Leiden, Aspen Publ, Chapters 6 and 7.

• O. Fritsch, C. Radaelli, L. Schrefler & A. Renda, 2012, Regulatory quality in the European Commission and the UK : old questions and new findings, CEPS Working Document no. 362, January (www.ceps.eu)

• F. Papandrea, 2009, Regulation and cost-benefit analysis, in : R. Brent, ed., Handbook of research on Cost-Benefit analysis, Cheltenham, E. Elgar

• Renda, A. (2006), Impact assessment in the EU – The State of the Art and the Art of the State, Brussels, CEPS.

• Allio, L. (2007):Better regulation and impact assessment in the European Commission, in Kirkpatrick, C. and Parker, D. (eds.), Regulatory Impact Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 72 – 106.

• De Francesco, F. and Radaelli, C.M. (2007): Indicators of regulatory quality, in Kirkpatrick, C. and Parker, D. (eds.), Regulatory Impact Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 36 – 55.

• De Francesco, F., C. Radaelli & V. Troeger, 2011, Implementing regulatory innovations in Europe : the case of impact assessment, Journal of European Public Policy,

• EU Court of Auditors, 2010, Impact Assessments in the EU institutions : do they support Decision-making ?, Special Report no. 3/ 2010, see eca.europa.eu

• Lofstedt, R. & A. Schlag (2016), Looking back and going forward: what should the new European Commission do in order to promote evidence-based policy-making?, Journal of Risk Research

20

- 20 -

• European Risk Forum (2016), Scientific evidence and the management of risk, October ; see www.riskforum.eu

Session 3 Mutual recognition: market access under diversity …MR in goods:

• REGULATION (EC) No 764/2008: laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC [the “MR regulation”] (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/goods/docs/reglement_764_2008/aout_2008/JO_218_EN.pdf)

• SEC(2011) 1375 of 21 Nov. 2011, New Legislative Framework Alignment package – Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment (10 pp.) ; for the students >> this is a quite technical impact assessment ; it is a strongly recommended reading so that all EEIB students appreciate the NLF framework and especially ‘what it takes’ to make the NLF (an upgraded New Approach) work properly ; it is NOT the purpose to master all details of this document

• Technopolis, EY, VVA & Danish Technology Institute (2015), Evaluation of the application of the mutual recognition principle in the field of goods, report for the Commission, June, http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/free-movement-sectors/mutual-recognition/index_en.htm

• Maduro, M.P. (2007), So close and yet so far: the paradoxes of mutual recognition, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, pp. 814 – 825.

• Pelkmans, J., 2012, Mutual recognition: rationale, logic and application in the EU internal goods market, in: P. Behrens et al., Oekonomische Analyse des Europarechts, Mohr-Siebeck

• EY (2017), Study on the costs and benefits of the revision of the Mutual Recognition Regulation 764/2008, to be published by the COM in the autumn of 2017

• Eur Parliament (2017), Mutual Recognition Regulation, Briefing, Implementation Appraisal. EPRS (EP Research Service, no. PE 603. 241, author : Alina Dinu), June

• COM (2017)796 of 19 Dec 2017, Proposal for a Regulation on Mutual recognition of Goods […], https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:d47e2d52-e4b2-11e7-9749-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

• SWD(2017)471 of 19 Dec 2017, Impact Assessment […] Proposal…Mutual recognition of goods …; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0471&from=EN

• EuroCommerce (2018), Position Paper (on Proposal Mutual recognition), 10 April, see www.eurocommerce.eu

21

- 21 -

…MR in services/ others: • European Commission (2004), Report on competition in professional services, COM (2004) 83

of 9 February. 2004 • Casey, J.P. and Lannoo, K. (2006), The MIFID revolution, ECMI Policy Brief No. 3, CEPS and

ECMI, Brussels (see www.eurocapitalmarkets.org ) • Chirico, A. (2007), Suitability and appropriateness under MIFID : faithful watchdogs or

terrible twins ?, ECMI Policy Briefs No. 9, Brussels, CEPS and ECMI (www.eurocapitalmarkets.org )

• Hatzopoulos, V., 2012, Regulating services in the EU, Oxford UP • Kox, H.and Lejour, A. (2006), The trade-induced effects of the Services Directive and the

country of origin principle, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes, Working Paper no. 44 http://aei.pitt.edu/6746/01/1324_44.pdf

• Craig and de Búrca (eds.) (2008), EU Law – Text, Cases and Materials, fourth edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 834 – 41 (General Legislation to facilitate establishment and services: Recognition of Professional Qualifications).

• Azelio Fulmini (2006): Freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services and mutual recognition of diplomas, European Parliament Fact Sheets http://www.europarl.europa.eu/facts/3_2_3_en.htm?textMode=on

• Forrester, I.S.(2004): Where Law meets Competition: Is Wouters like a Cassis de Dijon or a Platypus?, European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, 2004 EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/Research/Competition/2004/200409-compet-Forrester.pdf

• European Commission (2014), SWD (2014) 158 of 15 May 2014, Economic review of the financial regulation agenda, pp. 344

• Freixas, X./ Hartmann/ Mayer (2004): The Assessment: European Financial Integration, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 20, No. 4 http://ejscontent.ebsco.com/ContentServer.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Foxrep%2Eoxfordjournals%2Eorg%2Fcgi%2Freprint%2F20%2F4%2F475%2Epdf

• Stephen, F.H. (2002), The European Single Market and the Regulation of Legal Professions – An Economic Analysis, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 115 – 125 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4150455.pdf

• Hatzopoulos, V. (2008), Legal Aspects of the Internal Market for Services, in: Pelkmans, J./ Hanf, D. and Chang, M. (eds.), The EU Internal Market in Comparative Perspective – Economic, Political and Legal Analyses, Bruxelles: PIE-Peter Lang, pp. 139 – 190.

• Nicolaidis, K. and Schmidt, S.K.(2007), Mutual recognition 'on trial': the long road to services liberalization, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, pp. 717 – 734.

• Kostoris-Padoa Schioppa. (2007), Dominant losers: a comment on the services directive from an economic perspective, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, pp. 735 – 742.

• Monteagudo, J, A. Rutkowski & D. Lorenzani, 2012, The economic impact of the services directive : a first assessment, DG EcFin Economic Papers, no. 456, June

• Bottini, N. & M. Molnar, 2010, How large are competitive pressures in services markets ? Estimation of mark-ups, OECD Journal : Economic Studies, Vol. 2010/1

Session 4:

22

- 22 -

Horizontal EU regulation: principles and scope …on Risk regulation/Precautionary principle:

• Van Asselt, M.B.A. (2010), Science, knowledge and uncertainty in the EU risk regulation, in Ellen Vos, E./Everson, M. (eds.): Uncertain Risks Regulated, Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 359 – 396

• Joerges, C. (2010), Sound science in the European and global markets: Karl Polanyi in Geneva, in Ellen Vos, E./Everson, M. (eds.): Uncertain Risks Regulated, Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 415 – 425

• Vos, E. (2010), The EU regulatory system on food safety: between trust and safety, in Ellen Vos, E./Everson, M. (eds.): Uncertain Risks Regulated, Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 249 – 267

• Shaffer, E. and Pollack, M. (2010), The EU regulatory system for GMOs, in Ellen Vos, E./Everson, M. (eds.): Uncertain Risks Regulated, Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 269 – 294

• Kuiper, A. (2010), The role of scientific experts in risk regulation of foods, in Ellen Vos, E./Everson, M. (eds.): Uncertain Risks Regulated, Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 389 – 425

• Majone, G., 2010, Foundations of risk regulation, European Journal of Risk regulation, Vol. 1 / 1

• Alemanno, A. (2010), The European Regulatory Response to the Volcanic Ash Crisis between Fragmentation and Integration, Mini-Symposium on the Volcanic Ash Crisis, European Journal of Risk regulation, Vol. 2/ 2

• Brannigan, V. (2010), Alice’s Adventures in Volcano Land: The Use and Abuse of Expert Knowledge in Safety Regulation, Mini-Symposium on the Volcanic Ash Crisis, European Journal of Risk regulation, Issue 2

• D. Vogel (2012), The politics of pre-caution [ on EU vs US ], Princeton U.P. • J. Wiener, M. Rogers, J. Hammit & P. Sand (2011), ed.s, The reality of pre-caution,

Washington DC / London, RFF Press (Resources for the Future) [many case studies on US vs EU ]

• K. H.. Whiteside (2006), Precautionary politics, Cambridge (US), MIT Press, esp. chapter 3, pp. 61 – 87.

• European Commission (2000), Communication on the precautionary principle, COM (2000) 1 of 2 Febr. 2000: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/00/96&format=PDF&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

• Weimer, M. (2010): Applying Precaution in EU Authorisation of Genetically Modified Products — Challenges and Suggestions for Reform, European Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 624-657, September 2010

• European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (2008), Scientific and technical contribution to the development of an overall health strategy in the area of GMOs – Executive Summary http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/jrc_20080910_gmo_study_en.pdf

• Wiener, A. and Rogers, M.D. (2002): Comparing Precaution in the United States and Europe, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 5, Issue 4, pp. 317 – 49.

• Graham, J., 2008, Saving lives through administrative law and economics, Washington DC, AEI center for Regulatory and Market Studies, 08-11, December

• Vogel, David (2001): The New Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe, ESRC Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation; Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation at the London School of Economics and Political Science

23

- 23 -

• Vogel, D. (1995): Trading-Up: consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy, Cambridge : Harvard University Press

• Gerhard Angerer, Ralf Nordbeck and Christian Sartorius (2008): Impacts on industry of Europe's emerging chemicals policy REACh, Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 86, Issue 4, March 2008, Pages 636-647

• Kjaer, P. (2007), Rationality within REACH? On Functional Differentiation as the Structural Foundation of Legitimacy in European Chemicals Regulation, European University Institute, Department of Law, Working Paper 2007/18. http://www.iue.it/PUB/LawWPs/law2007-18.pdf

• David Pearce (2004): Does European Union Environmental Policy Pass a Cost–Benefit Test?, World Economics Journal, Volume 5, Number 3, pages 115 – 137.

• Case study: Implementation of the ISO 14000 environmental management system, in: W. Hesser, A. Pfeilzer, H. de Vries et al. , ed.s, Standardisation in companies and markets, Hamburg, Helmut Schmidt University, 2007.

• The Economist, 2004, Living dangerously, a survey of risk, January 24th • Black, J., 2010, The role of risk in regulatory processes, in: R. Baldwin et al, (see reference

works), pp. 302 - 348 • Pollack, R. (1998), Imagined risk and cost-benefit analysis, American Economic Review, Vol.

88, 2, pp. 376 – 380. Pollack, R. (1995), Regulating risks, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 33, March R. Lofstedt (2014), The precautionary principle in the EU : why a formal review is long overdue, Risk Management, Vol. 16 no. 3, pp. 137 - 163

…on IPR: • C. Greenhalgh and M. Rogers (2007): The value of intellectual property rights to firms and

society, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 23, Number 4, pp.541–567. http://ejscontent.ebsco.com/ContentServer.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Foxrep%2Eoxfordjournals%2Eorg%2Fcgi%2Freprint%2F23%2F4%2F541%2Epdf

• L. Davis (2004): Intellectual property rights, strategy and policy, Journal Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 13, Issue 5, pp.: 399-415.

• Werner Hölzl (2007): Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and European IPR Policy, WIFO Quarterly, 1/2007 , pp. 71-82.

• Cesaroni, F. and Giuri, P. (2006), IPRs and market dynamics, in: Bianchi, P. and Labory, S. (eds.), International Handbook on Industrial Policy,. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

• Jullien, N. and Zimmermann, J.B. (2006), New approaches to intellectual property : from open software to knowledge-based industrial activities, in: Bianchi, P. and Labory, S. (eds.), International Handbook on Industrial Policy,. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

• Guellec, D. et al. (2007), Patent as a Marketing Instrument, in: D. Guellec & B. van Pottelsberghe, The Economics of the European Patent System: IP Policy for Innovation and Competition, Oxford UP.

• B van Pottelsberghe (2007), Hot “Patent” Issues, Quantitative Evidence, in: The Economics of the European Patent System: IP Policy for Innovation and Competition, Oxford UP.

• Bekkers, R., R. Bongard & A. Nuvolari, 2011, An empirical study on the determinants of essential patents claims in compatibility standards, Research Policy, Vol. 40, pp. 1001 1015

24

- 24 -

• Blind, K. et al, 2011, Study on the interplay between standards and IPRs, European Commission, DG Enterprise, [now, on website DG Grow ]

• Dolmans, M, 2011, A tale of two tragedies – a plea for open standards, International free and open source software review, Vol. 2,2

…on public procurement: • PwC, ECORYS & London Economics, 2011, Public procurement in Europe, cost and

effectiveness, European Commission, DG Markt, March • European Commission, 2011, Evaluation report, impact and effectiveness of EU public

procurement legislation, part 1, SEC (2011) 853 of 27 June • Gelderman, K. et al. (2010): Explaining Non-Compliance with European Union Procurement

Directives: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 48, Issue 2, pp. 243-264, March 2010

• Bovis, C. (2006), Public Procurement in the European Union: A Critical Analysis of the New Regime, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol. 33, pp. 29-59.

• Jakob Edler and Luke Georghiou (2007), Public procurement and innovation—Resurrecting the demand side, Research Policy, Vol. 36, Issue 7, pp. 949-963.

• Bovis, C.H. (2007), EU Public Procurement Law, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, chapters 1 (Introduction), 2 (The development of a public procurement framework) and Chapter 3 (The principles of public procurement regulation), pp. 1 – 80.

• Gordon, H./ Rimmer, S. and Arrowsmith, S. (2003), The Economic Impact of the European Union Regime on Public Procurement: Lessons for the WTO, The World Economy, Vol. 21, Issue 2, pp. 159 – 187.

• Trionfetti, F. (2002), Discriminatory Public Procurement and International Trade, The World Economy, Vol. 23, Issue 1, pp. 57 – 76.

• J. Pelkmans & A. Correia de Brito (2012), Enforcement barriers in intra-EU cross-border public procurement, ch. 7 in : idem, Enforcement in the EU single market, Brussels, CEPS (book on line www.ceps.eu )

• C. Smith & A. Lilico (2014), Public procurement and concessions, study by Europe Economics, European Parliament, Costs of Non-Europe project, study PE 536.355, September

…on product liability: Twigg-Flesner, C. (2005), Innovation and Consumer Law, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 409 – 432. Silva, F. and Cavaliere, A. (2000): The Economic Impact of Product Liability: Lessons from the US and the EU Experience, in: Galli, Giampaolo and Pelkmans, Jacques (eds.) Regulatory Reform and Competitiveness inEurope, Vol. 1, Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar, pp. 292 – 323. Standop, D. (2006): Product Recall versus Business as Usual: A Preliminary Analysis of Decision-Making in Potential Product-related Crises. No 7761, 99th Seminar, February 8-10, 2006, Bonn, Germany from European Association of Agricultural Economists Fairgrieven, D. and Howells, G. (2007): Rethinking Product Liability: A Missing Element in the European Commission’s Third Review of the European Product Liability Directive, The Modern Law Review 2007. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2007.00672.x/pdf

25

- 25 -

M. G. Faure (2000): Product Liability and Product Safety in Europe: Harmonization or Differentiation, Kyklos, Volume 53 Issue 4, pp. 467–508. M. G. Faure (2012), Private law : tort, in : T. Eger & H-B. Schaefer, ed.s, Research Handbook on the economics of EU law, Cheltenham, E. Elgar, ch. 9 Session 5 EU sectoral regulation (1): horizontal logic in 5 key areas …on food safety:

• Vos, E. (2010), The EU regulatory system on food safety: between trust and safety, in Ellen Vos, E./Everson, M. (eds.): Uncertain Risks Regulated, Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 249 – 267

• Shaffer, E. and Pollack, M. (2010), The EU regulatory system for GMOs, in Ellen Vos, E./Everson, M. (eds.): Uncertain Risks Regulated, Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 269 – 294

• Kuiper, A. (2010), The role of scientific experts in risk regulation of foods, in Ellen Vos, E./Everson, M. (eds.): Uncertain Risks Regulated, Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 389 – 425

• Ragona, M. and Mazzocchi, M. (2008): Food safety regulation, economic impact assessment and quantitative methods. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Volume 21, Issue 2 June 2008 , pages 145 – 158

• Houghton, J.R. et al. (2008): The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities. Food Policy, Volume 33, Issue 1, February 2008, Pages 13-26

• Hoffman, S. (2010): Food Safety Policy and Economics: A Review of the Literature, Resources of the Future, Discussion Paper, July 2010 http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-10-36.pdf

• Vancauteren, M. and Henry de Frahan, B. (2006): Harmonisation of food regulations and trade in the Single Market: evidence from disaggregated data, European Review of Agricultural Economics Vol 33 (3), pp. 337–360

• Vos, E. and Wendler, F. (eds.) (2006), Food Safety Regulation in Europe, Antwerpen: Intersentia, chapter 2 (Food safety Regulation at the EU Level), pp. 65 – 139.

• Ugland, Trygve/ Veggeland, Frode (2006): Experiments in Food Safety policy Integration in the European Union, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 44, Issue 3, pp.: 607 – 624.

• Alemanno, A. (2006), Food Safety and the Single European Market, in: Ansell and Vogel (eds.), What’s the Beef? The Contested Governance of European Food Safety, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 237 – 258.

• EFSA (2012), EFSA Journal, special issue : Scientific achievements, challenges and perspectives of EFSA, taking stock of the 10 years activities, see www.efsa.europa.eu

• A. Szaikowska (2011), Different actors, different factors – science and other legitimate factors in the EU and national food regulation, European Journal for Risk Regulation, Vol. 2/4, pp. 523 – 539

26

- 26 -

• EFSA (2012), FAQ on genetically modified organisms, what is EFSA’s role in the risk assessment of GMOs ? see www.efsa.europa.eu

• Euractiv (2018), In-depth interview with Mr. Url, Exec. Director of EFSA, very insightful, https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/interview/efsa-boss-eu-food-law-overhaul-a-big-step-towards-transparency , May (pp. 14)

• European Parliament (2017), The EU’s General Food Law regulation (Fitness check), January, EPRS, PE 595.906

• European Parliament (2018), Reg. (EC) 1107/2009 on the placing of plant protection products on the market [i.e. on pesticides], [note pp. 550 ! ], www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/615668/EPRS_STU(2018)615668_EN.pdf

…on standardization:

• European Commission (2011), A Strategic Vision for European Standards, COM (2011) 311, 1 June 2011

• European Commission (2011), Proposal for a Regulation on European Standardisation, COM (2011) 315, 1 June 2011

• European Commission (2011), Impact Assessment, Accompanying document to COMM (2011) 315, pp. 219, SEC (2011) 671, June 1 2011.

• COM (2013) 74 of 13 Febr 2013, More product safety and better market surveillance in the single market for products,

• Swann, P. (2010): The Economics of Standardization: An Update, Innovative Economics Limited Report for the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Complete Draft Version 2.2, 27 May 2010 http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/e/10-1135-economics-of-standardization-update.pdf

• Felbermayr, G.J. (2008), Sorting It Out: Technical Barriers to Trade and Industry Productivity, FIW Working Paper series no. 014, http://www.fiw.ac.at/fileadmin/Documents/Publikationen/Working_Paper/N_014-felbermayr.pdf

• European Commission (2010): Report of the Expert Panel for the Review of the European Standardization System. Standardization for a competitive and innovative Europe: a vision for 2020, EXPRESS report, February 2010, Brussels (DG enterprise Web Site)

• Hesser, W. (2006), Standardisation within a company – a strategic approach, in : W. Hesser, A. Pfeilzer, H. de Vries et al. , ed.s, Standardisation in companies and markets, Hamburg, Helmut Schmidt University.

• Gunawardena, N. (2006), External standardisation as a company strategy, in: Hesser, W./ Pfalzer, A./ de Vries, H. et al. (eds.): Standardisation in companies and markets, Hamburg, Helmut Schmidt University.

• Buethe, T. & W. Mattli, 2012, The new Global rulers, chapter 6 : Private regulators in global product markets, Princeton / Oxford, Princeton UP

• Blind, K. (2006): A taxonomy of standards in the service sector: Theoretical discussion and empirical test. The Service Industries Journal, Volume 26, Issue 4 June 2006 , pages 397 – 420

• Blind, K. (2009): The ICT standardisation policy of the EU: changes ahead!? Euro American Conference On Telematics And Information Systems

27

- 27 -

• Blind, K. et al. (2009): SME access to European standardization, Enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to achieve greater benefit from standards and from involvement in standardization, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, August 2009 http://www.normapme.com/docs/SME%20Access%20Report%2020090821.pdf

• Blind, K. (2004), The Economics of Standards: theory, evidence, policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 24 – 54 (Specific Economic Impacts of Standards), chapters 10 (Theoretical Hypotheses Concerning the Driving Forces of Standardization Activities) and 13 (Empirical Test at the Firm Level).

• Hesser, W. and Czaya, A. (2007), The standardisation policy of the EU, in: W. Hesser, A. Pfeilzer, H. de Vries et al. (eds.), Standardisation in companies and markets, Hamburg, Helmut Schmidt University.

• M.Song, H. Jiang, T.Lu and H.Wu, (2007), Case study: Quality management methods and ISO 9000 quality system certification, in: W. Hesser, A. Pfeilzer, H. de Vries et al. (eds.), Standardisation in companies and markets, Hamburg, Helmut Schmidt University.

• Hesser, W. and Gautama, R.S. (2007), The EU and its New Approach, in: W. Hesser, A. Pfeilzer, H. de Vries et al. (eds.), Standardisation in companies and markets, Hamburg, Helmut Schmidt University.

• …on the new approach: (for the NLF, see Mutual recognition) • [an authoritative but very detailed survey of technical EU regulation of goods, plus

conformity assessment rules] The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of EU product rules 2016, OJEU C 272 of 26 July 2016 (pp. 149)

• COM (20140 25 of 22 Jan 2014, A vision for the internal market for industrial products • (on a comparison with the US on standards and technical regulation as well as conformity

assessment) • COM(2017) 787 of 19 Dec 2017, The goods package: reinforcing trust in the single market,

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0787&from=EN • COM (2017)795 of 19 Dec 2017, Proposal for a regulation laying down rules and procedures

for compliance with an enforcement of Union harmonisation legislation on products…. • J. Pelkmans (2015), TTIP : opportunities and challenges in TBTs, including standards, Briefing

for the IMCO Ctee of the EP, June, see www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/542225/IPOL_STU(2015)542225_EN.pdf

…on consumer protection: • European Commission (2007), EU Consumer Policy strategy 2007-2013 - Empowering

consumers, enhancing their welfare, effectively protecting them, COM(2007) 99 final, Brussels, 13.3.2007

• European Commission (2012), A European Consumer Agenda – boosting confidence and growth, COM (2012) 225 od 22 May 2012

• Second Consumer Report (COM 2014), http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy-programme/policy-strategy/documents/consumer_policy_report_2014_en.pdf

• Cuijpers, C. and Koops, B-J. (2010): How Fragmentation in European Law Undermines Consumer Protection: The Case of Location-Based Services, European Law Review, Vol. 33, pp. 880-897

• Weatherill, S. (2005), EU Consumer Law and Policy, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar, Chapter 9 (Product safety regulation), pp. 199 – 226.

28

- 28 -

• Weatherill, S. (2005), EU Consumer Law and Policy, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar, chapters 1(The evolution of consumer policy in the European Union), 2 (Negative Law and market integration), 3 (The law and practice of harmonization), and 11 (Evaluating Community consumer policy), pp. 1 – 83, 245 – 250.

• Twigg-Flesner, C. (2005), Innovation and Consumer Law, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 409 – 432.

• Hodges, C. (2001), Safety of Consumer Products, European Business Law Review, Vol. 12, pp. 274-280;

• BEUC, 2011, EU Consumers’ 2020 Vision, Brussels, www.beuc.eu/BEUCNoFrame/Docs/2 • F. Cafaggi & A. Nicita (2012), The evolution of consumer protection in the EU, in : T. Eger &

H-B. Schaefer, ed.s, Research Handbook on the economics of EU law, Cheltenham, E.Elgar, pp. 263 – 276

• EU consumer market scoreboard 2016 (12th ed.), European Commission, see http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer-evidence/consumer-scoreboards/12_edition/ndex_en.htm

• European Parliament (2018), Revision of consumer law directives (including injunctions): the ‘New Deal for consumers’, Briefing, April, Jan Tymowski, PE 615.672

• European Parliament (2018), Briefing – Consumer sale of goods, March, Rafal Manko, PE 614.744

• European Parliament (2017), Consumer protection cooperation, Briefing, Nikolina Sajn, October, PE 586.676

… on the ETS:

• Mirzha de Manuel, A. (2011), Market Efficiency in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme - An outlook for the third trading period, College of Europe, BEER paper No. 20, March 2011 http://www.coleurope.eu/template.asp?pagename=BEER

• Tilmann R., U. Triebswetter (2008), Implementation of the IPPC Directive and its economic

impacts: evidence from the EU steel and glass industry, European Environment, Vol. 18, Issue 3, pp. 186 – 201. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119877270/PDFSTART

• R. Bleischwitz K. Fuhrmann and E. Huchler (2007),

: The Sustainability Impact of the EU

Emissions Trading System on the European Industry, Bruges, European Economic Policy Briefings, BEEP briefing n° 17 http://www.coleurope.eu/template.asp?pagename=BEEP

• K. Schultz and P. Williamson (2005), Gaining Competitive Advantage in a Carbon-constrained World: Strategies for European Business, European Management Journal Volume 23, Issue 4, August 2005, Pages 383-391.

• Gros, D. & C. Egenhofer, 2010, Climate change and trade : taxing carbon at the border ?, CEPS, Brussels

29

- 29 -

• M. Rugman and A. Verbeke (2000), Six cases of corporate strategic responses to environmental regulation, in: European Management Journal, Vol. 18, Issue 4, pp. 377-385.

• Christian Egenhofer (2008), The Making of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme: Status, Prospects and Implications for Business, in European Management Journal Vol. 25 /6, Pages 453-463.

• A.Marcu, M. Elkerbout & W. Stoefs (2016), 2016 state of the EU ETS Report, CEPS Carbon Market Forum [www.ceps.eu], February

• (summary of a sectoral [ CEPS ] study of energy-intensive sectors, with in-firm data, for the Commission): Study on composition and drivers of energy prices and costs in energy-intensive industries: the case of ceramics, flat glass and chemicals, [14 authors], 30 January 2014, http://www.ceps.eu/system/files/About%20the%20Study%20and%20CRoss-sectoral%20Analysis.pdf

Session 6 EU sectoral regulation (2) : comparing heavily regulated sectors …on food regulation: [see also session 5 ]

• Randall, E. (2006), Not that soft or informal: a response to Eberlein and Grande’s account of regulatory governance in the EU with special reference to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Journal of European Public Policy 13, Issue 3, pp. 402 – 419.

• Buonanno, L. (2006), The Creation of the European Food Safety Authority, in: Ansell and Vogel (eds.), What’s the Beef? The Contested Governance of European Food Safety, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 259 – 278.

• O’Rourke, R. (2005), European Food Law, London : Sweet & Maxwell. ALSO REFER TO FOOD LITERATURE FOR SESSION 5

…on centralization and agencies:

• Gehring, Thomas/ Krapohl, Sebastian (2007), Supranational regulatory agencies between independence and control: the EMEA and the authorization of pharmaceuticals in the European Single Market, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 14, Issue 2, pp. 208 – 226.

• Coen, D. and Thatcher, M. (2008): Network Governance and Multi-level Delegation: European Networks of Regulatory Agencies, Journal of Public Policy, 28:49-71, Cambridge University Press

• Lavrijssen, S. and Hancher, L. (2008), European Regulators in the Network Sectors: Revolution or Evolution?, TILEC Discussion Paper no. 2008-024 http://www.hiil.org/uploads/File/academy/2008-024.pdf

• Jeanne-Mey Sun and Jacques Pelkmans (1995), Why Liberalisation Needs Centralisation: Subsidiarity and EU Telecoms, The World Economy, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp. 635-664.

• Borrs; S./ Koutalakis; C. and Wendler, F. (2007), European Agencies and Input Legitimacy: EFSA, EMeA and EPO in the Post-Delegation Phase, Journal of European Integration, Volume 29, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 583 – 600.

• Permanand, G. (2006), EU Pharmaceutical Regulation: The Politics of Policy-Making, Manchester: Manchester University Press, chapters 2 (Regulating the European medicines sector) and 3 (Theorising the development of Community competence in pharmaceuticals).

30

- 30 -

• Chiti, E. (2009), An Important Part of the EUs Institutional Machinery Features Problems and Perspectives of European Agencies, Common Market Law Review, October 2009, Vol. 46, Issue Number 5, pp. 1395-1442

• Pelkmans, J. & M. Simoncini (2014) Mellowing Meroni : how ESMA can help build the single market, CEPS Commentary, 18 Febr., www.ceps.eu

• M. Simoncini (2018), [ fill in, new book]

…on CARS-21: • ACEA, 2006, CARS-21, a summary, Brussels, see www.acea.be • High Level Group (2012), CARS-21, on the competituiveness and sustainable growth of the

automotive industry in the EU, Final Report, see www.ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/cars-21-final-report-2012-en.pdf

• Simon Koolen, Yvette Taminiau and Coen Faber (2005): Monti and Market Dynamics: The Strategy of a National Car Importer, European Management Journal, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp. 413-425.

• E. Kawecka-Wyrzykowska, 2009: Evolving pattern of intra-industry trade specialization of the new Member States (NMS) of the EU: the case of automotive industry DG EcFin Economic Papers n° 364, March 2009 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication14289_en.pdf

• Crotty, J and Smith, M. (2006): Strategic Responses to Environmental Regulation in the U.K. Automotive Sector: The European Union End-of-Life Vehicle Directive and the Porter Hypothesis, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 10, Issue 4, pages 95–111, October 2006

…on REACH

• Nordlander, K., C. Simon & H. Pearson, 2010, Hazard vs. Risk in EU chemicals regulation, European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 1/ 3, pp. 239 – 250

• Riss, J., 2010, Chemical warfare – the lobbying battle on REACH, in : Bursting the Brussels bubble, Brussels, www.alter-eu.org

• Pelkmans, J. (2005), REACH – getting the chemistry right in Europe, in : D. Hamilton & J. Quinley, ed.s, Deep integration , how transatlantic markets are leading globalisation, Washington DC (CTR) & Brussels (CEPS)

• COM (2013) 49 of 5 Febr 2013, General report on REACH (first REACH review) on chemicals • L. Molander & A. Cohen (2012), EU and US regulatory approaches to information on chemicals

in products, European Journal of Risk Regulation, no. 4, pp. 521 – 533 • Technopolis (2016), Cumulative cost assessment for the EU chemical industry, published by the

European Commission, August (DG Grow) • European Environmental Agency (2018), Chemicals for a sustainable future, Copenhagen, May,

see www.eea.europa.eu • BEUC (2017), REACH for non-toxic environment, BEUC position on the 2017 REACH review, see

www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2017-008_pmobeuc_position_on_reach_review.pdf • European Parliament (2016), EU policy and legislation on chemicals,

www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/595861/EPRS_IDA(2016)595861_EN.pdf

• (for the 2018 REACH review, see student reading assignment, various)

Session 7 EU regulation of services

31

- 31 -

…on horizontal services in dir. 2006 / 123 • M. Chang, D. Hanf & J. Pelkmans, 2010, The services directive : Trojan horse or White knight

?, Journal of European Integration, January, Vol. 32/1 • COM(2011) 20 of 27 January 2011, Towards a better functioning Single market for Services –

building on Mutual Evaluation ; and the detailed COM Staff paper SEC (2011) 102 of 27 Jan. 2011 (with many examples)

• M. Falk & E. Jarocinska, 2010, Linkages between services and manufacturing in EU countries, W.P. in the SERVICEGAP project, see www.servicegap.com

• Falk, M, M. O’Mahony & Y. Wolfmayr, 2011, Greater linkages between manufacturing and services, European Policy Brief, SERVICEGAP project, September, www.servicegap.com

• McKinsey Global Institute, 2010, Beyond austerity : a path to economic growth and renewal in Europe, esp. ch. 3 (pp. 43 – 86), see www.mckinsey.com/mgi (with detailed sectoral data and examples)

• COM (2012) 261 of 8 June 2012, On the implementation of the services directive : a partnership for new growth in services (with several SWDs)

• High Level Group on Business Services (2014), Final Report, April, website DG Enterprise [now DG Grow]

• J. Pelkmans, F. Mustilli & J. Timini (2014), Single Market for Services [ Costs of Non-Europe Report in the Single Market ; elaborate survey and analysis of the gains from a deep single market in services ], PE 536.354, September, http://europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2014/536354/EPRS_STU(2014)536354_REV1.EN.pdf

• E. Corugedo & E. Perez Ruiz (2014), The EU services directive: gains from further liberalisation, IMF Working Paper 14/113, July

• European Court of Auditors (2016), Has the Commission ensured effective implementation of the Services directive?, Special report no. 5, Luxembourg, www.eca.europa.eu

• COM (2016)820 of 10 Jan 2017, On reform recommendations for regulation in professional services ; and SWD (2016)436 of 10 Jan 2017, idem, pp. 174

• COM(2016)822 of 20 Jan 2017, Proposal .. directive…on a proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions

• SWD(2016)463 of 10 Jan 2017, Impact assessment (of COM[2016]822) • J. Pelkmans (2017), The new restrictiveness indicator for professional services: an

assessment, study for the IMCO ctee of the European Parliament, September, www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/607349/IPOL_STU(2017)607349_EN.pdf

• E. Van Der Marel (2017), Economic effects of reform in professional services, Briefing, European Parliament, PE 607.337

…on telecoms:

• Cave, M. and Corkery, M. (2009): Regulation and Barriers to Trade in Telecommunications Services in the European Union, CESifo Working Paper Series No. 2678

• Marcus, J. et al., (2013), How to build a ubiquitous EU Digital Society, report for the ITRE Ctee of the EP, November, see www.europarl.europa.eu/studies

32

- 32 -

• Centre for European Policy Studies (2006), Last call for Lisbon? Suggestions for the future regulation of E-communications in Europe, Report of a CEPS Task Force, rapporteur Andrea Renda, Brussels, June, pp. V-X.

• Maartje de Visser (2007), Revolution or Evolution – What Institutional Future for EC Communications Law?, TILEC Discussion Paper DP 2007-028.

• P. Alexiadis & M. Cave, 2010, Regulation and Competition Law in Telecoms and other network industries, in : R. Baldwin et al, ed. s, (see reference works)

• European Commission (2010), Telecoms: new measures to counter data roaming bill shocks from 1 July; lower roaming call price caps – frequently asked questions, MEMO/10/279, Brussels, 28 June 2010

• Szyszczak, E. (2007): The Regulation of the State in Competitive Markets in the EU, Oxford: Hart, chapters 5 (Liberalisation) and 7 (Services of General Economic Interest), pp. 139 – 176 and 211 – 253.

• Pelkmans, J. and Renda, A. (2011), Single eComms market? No such thing…, Communications and Strategy, no. 82, spring

• Andrea Renda, 2009, The review of the EU telecoms framework : a tale of the anti-commons, in : M. Cave et al., 2009, Monitoring EU Telecoms Policy, NEREC Report, pp.9-18.

• Sang H. Lee and John Levendis (2006), Creation of a Separate Telecom Regulatory Agency: A Duration Analysis of its Time Pattern, Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 24(3), pages 407-417.

• Duncan, G & L. Cameron, 2006, Regulation and the structure of the telecoms industry, in : M. Crew & D. Parker, ed.s, (see reference works)

• A. Renda & C. Yoo (2015), Telecoms and internet services: the digital side of TTIP, CEPS Special Report no. 112, July

• C. Blackman (2015), Last chance for Europe in the digital saloon, CEPS Commentary, 28 May • A. Renda (2013), Net neutrality and mandatory network sharing: how to disconnect the

continent, CEPS Policy Brief no. 309, December …on networked transport services:

• Pelkmans, J. and di Pietrantonio, L. (2004): The Economics of Railway Reform, Journal of Network Industries, Vol. 5, 3 - 4 , September/ December.

• van Houtte, B. (2004), The Single European Sky: EU reform of air traffic management, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 41,pp. 1595-1612.

• Bartlik, M. (2007), The Impact of EU Law on the Regulation of International Air Transportation, Aldershot: Ashgate, chapter 2 (Regulation of Air Transportation in the European Community), pp. 11 – 88.

• D. Gerardin, 2006, Twenty years of liberalisation of NWI in the EU: Where do we go now? ; Inaugural Lecture Tilburg Univ., Nov. 3, 2006

• Crozet, Y., C. Nash & J. Preston (2012), Beyond the quiet life of a natural monopoly : regulatory challenges ahead for Europe’s rail sector, Brussels, CERRE Policy Paper, see www.cerre.eu

• Pels, E. (2008): Airline network competition: Full-service airlines, low-cost airlines and long-haul markets. Research in Transportation Economics, 2008, vol. 24, issue 1, pages 68-74

33

- 33 -

• Alves, C. et al (2010): Rivalry Amongst European Low Cost Airlines: Are Shareholders Enjoying the Game?. Journal of Air Transport Management, Volume 16, Issue 6, November 2010, Pages 304-309

• I. Savage, 2006, Economic regulation of transport : principles and experience, in: M. Crew & D. Parker, ed.s, (see reference works)

• [more recent publications in the list of the NWI course, Econ.s of Network Industries, also taught by J. Pelkmans]

…on financial services: • De Larosiere, V. et al. (2009), Report by the High Level Group on Financial Supervision,

Brussels, 25 February 2009 • Scherer, F. M. (2010), A perplexed economist confronts ‘too big to fail’, European Journal of

Comparative Economics, Vol. 7/2, pp. 267 – 284 • ECB (2016), Financial market integration in Europe, Frankfurt, May • Ayadi, R., E. Arbak & W. de Groen (2011), Business models in European banking, a pre- and

post-crisis screening, Brussels, CEPS • Verhelst, S. (2011), Renewed financial supervision in Europe – final or transitory, Egmont

Paper 44, March, see www.egmontinstitute.be (Brussels) • European Commission (2011), The effects of temporary state aid rules adopted in the

context of the financial and economic crisis, SEC (2011) 1126 of 5 Oct 2011 • Lannoo, K., 2012, The roadmap to Banking Union : a call for consistency, CEPS Commentary,

30 August 2012, www.ceps.eu • SWD (2014) 158 of 15 May 2014, Economic review of the financial regulation agenda, pp.

344 • S. Micossi, G. Bruzzone & J. Carmassi (2013), The new European framework for managing

bank crises, CEPS Policy Brief no. 304, November

…on professional services: • European Commission (2011), Modernising the Professional Qualifications Directive,

COM(2011) 367, Green Paper, 22 June 2011 • Delimatsis, P. (2010), Thou shall not…(dis)trust’: Codes of Conduct and Harmonization of

Professional Standards in the EU, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 47, pp. 1049 – 1087, August 2010

• E. Canton, D. Ciriaci & I. Solera (2014), Economic impact of professional services, DG EcFin, Economic Papers no. 533, Sept

• European Commission (2004), Report on competition in professional services, COM (2004) 83, 9 February 2004

• Philipsen, N. (2008), Regulation of professions: a European perspective, in : M. Faure & F. Stephen, ed.s, Essays in the law and economics of Regulation, Antwerp (Intersentia)

• [see also services, before]

34

- 34 -

Session 8 EU regulation and the 'European Social Model': meaning for business?

• European Commission (2008), Renewed Social Agenda: opportunities, access and solidarity in 21st century Europe, COM (2008) 412 of 2 July 2008.

• Hantrais, L. (2007), Social Policy in the European Union, third edition; Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, chapters 1 (Developing European Social Policy), 2 (Towards a European Social Model), 4 (Improving Living and Working Conditions), 6 (The Gender Dimension of Social Policy), 9 (Social Policy and Mobility) and 10 (Assessing 50 Years of European Social Policy).

• Siebert, Stanley(2006), Labour Market Regulation in the EU-15: Causes and Consequences - A Survey,. IZA Discussion Paper no. 2430.

• Leibfried, S. (2010): Social Policy: Left to the Judges and the Markets?, in Wallace, H./ Pollack and Young, A., M.A. (eds.): Policy-Making in the European Union, sixth edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253 – 281.

• Scharpf, Fritz W. (2002): The European Social Model, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.: 40, Issue 4, pp.: 645 – 670.

• Bekker, S./Wilthagen, T./Kongshøj Madsen, P./Zhou, J./ Rogowski, R./ Keune, M. and Tangian, A. (2008), Flexicurity - a European Approach to Labour Market Policy, Intereconomics, Vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 68 – 111.

• Koukoulaki, T. and Boy, S. (eds.) (2004), Globalizing technical standards, impact and challenges for occupational health and safety, Brussels, TUTB of the ETUC.

• Eichener, V. (1997), Effective European problem solving : lessons from the regulation of occupational safety & environmental protection, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 4,4, December, pp. 591 – 607.

• Baldwin, R. and Daintith, T. (eds.) (1992), Harmonisation and hazard - regulating workplace health and safety in the EC, London, Graham & Trotman.

• European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2010), Economic incentives to improve occupational safety and health: a review from the European perspective, https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/reports/economc_incentives_TE3109255ENC

• COM (2017)12 of 10 Jan 2017, Safer and healthier work for all – modernization of the EU occupational safety and health legislation and policy, https://eur-lex.euroap.eu/legal-content/EN/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0012&from=EN

• SWD(2017)10 of 10 Jan 2017, Ex post evaluation of the EU occupational safety and health directives (REFIT evaluation), obtained via https://osha.europa.eu/safety-and-health-legis;ation/european-directives (pp. 198)

• Haverland, M. (2007), When the Welfare State meets the Regulatory State: EU Occupational Pension policy, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 14, Issue 6, pp. 886 – 904.

• Prügl, E. (2007), Gender and European Union Politics, in: Jørgensen, K.E./ Pollack, M.A. and Rosamond, B. (eds.), Handbook of European Union Politics, London: Sage, pp. 433 – 448.

• Pelkmans, J. (2006), European Integration – Methods and Economic Analysis, third edition, Harlow : Pearson Education, case study 15.2, pp. 328 – 329.

• Wasmer, E. and von Weizsäcker, J. (2007), A Better Globalisation Fund, Bruegel Policy Brief no. 2007/01 http://aei.pitt.edu/8327/01/PB200701_GlobalisationFund.pdf

35

- 35 -

• von Weizsäcker, J. (2007), Welcome to Europe, Bruegel Policy Brief no. 2006/03 http://www.bruegel.org/Public/Publication_detail.php?ID=1169&publicationID=1259

• Tsoukalis, L. (2005), Why we need a Globalisation Adjustment Fund, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, Athens, Discussion paper prepared for the UK Presidency October 2005 http://www.capcollege.bc.ca/programs/europe/__shared/assets/Social_Cohesion_427637.pdf

• Berndt Keller (2008), Social Dialogue – The Specific Case of the European Union, International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Vol. 24, pp. 201-227.

• Leca, C. (2007), The Participation of Employees’ Representatives in the Governance Structure of the Societas Europeae, European Business Law Review, Vol. 18, pp. 403-441.

• C. Shupe, 2012, Measuring the modern social market economy, Bertelsmann Policy Brief 2012/04, www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de

• Barou, Y., 2012, The emerging European Social Model, as asset to face the crisis, Fondation Robert Schuman, European Issues no. 248, 16 July, www.robert-schuman.eu

• Malmberg, J. & C. Johansson, 2012, The Commission’s Posting package, July, Swedish Institute for European Policy Issues (SIEPS), European Policy Analysis 2012/8 ; www.sieps.eu

• Pochet, P. & C. Degryse, 2012, The programmed dismantling of the “European Social Model”, Intereconomics, Vol. 47 / 4, July / August

• European Commission (2013), Posting of workers : EU safeguards against social dumping, MEMO -13-1103 of 6 Dec 2013

• Fernandes, S. & K. Maslauskaite (2013), Deepening the EMU , how to maintain and develop the European social model ?, Paris, Notre Europe, Studies & Reports no. 101, www.notre-europe.eu

• S. Richard (2016), The implementing directive on posted workers : and what now ?, Foundation Schuman, European Issues no,. 383, March

• S. Fernandes (2016), Access to social benefits for EU mobile citizens: tourism or myth?, Notre Europe, Policy Paper 168, June , www.delorsinstitute.eu

• European Parliament (2018), Briefing, European Labour Authority, PE 621.820, May • COM (2017)206 of 26 April 2017, Reflection Paper on the Social Dimension of Europe • D. Seikel (2017), The European Pillar of Social Rights, an analysis, Policy Brief 11/2017, WSI,

https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_wsi_pb_17e_2017.pdf • European Parliament (2017), Social governance in the EU, November,

www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDat/etudes/IDAN/2017/614579/EPRS_IDA(2017)614579_EN.pdf

Session 9 Why and how Subsidiarity and two-tier regulation matter for business (1)

• Cooper, Ian (2006): The Watchdogs of Subsidiarity: National Parliaments and the Logic of Arguing in the EU, Jornal of Common Market Studies 2006, Vol.: 44, Issue 2, pp.: 281 – 304.

• Van Kersbergen, K. and Verbeek, B. (2004): Subsidiarity as a Principle of Governance in the European Union, Comparative European Politics, Vol. 2, pp. 142 – 62.

36

- 36 -

• Larouche, P. (2005), Coordination of European and Member State Regulatory Policy: Horizontal, Vertical and Transversal Aspects, in: Geradin, D., Muñoz, R. and Petit, N. (eds.), Regulation through Agencies in the EU, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 164 – 179.

• Geradin, D. and McCahery, J.A. (2004), Regulatory Co-Opetition: transcending the regulatory competition debate, in: Jordana, J./ Levi-Faur, D. (ed.), The Politics of Regulation – Istitutions and Regulatory Reforms for the Age of Governance, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar, pp. 90 – 123.

• Esty, D.C. and Geradin, D. (2001), Regulatory Co-Opetition, in: Esty, D.C. and Geradin, D. (eds.), Regulatory Competition and Economic Integration – Comparative Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 30 – 46

• Jeanne-Mey Sun and Pelkmans, J. (1995), Regulatory Competition in the Single Market, Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp. 67-89.

• Pelkmans, J. (2005), Testing for Subsidiarity, in: Bruha, T. and Nowak, C. (eds.), Die Europäische Union: Innere Verfasstheit und globale Handlungsfähigkeit, Nomos Baden-Baden (also BEEP no. 13, College of Europe).

• Fullerton, T.M./ de Leon, M. and Kelley, B.W. (2007), Regulatory Burdens And International Income Performance, Applied Econometrics and International Development, Vol. 7, Issue 1.

• Begg, I. (2007), Lisbon II, Two Years on: An Assessment of the Partnership for Growth and Jobs, CEPS Special Reports http://shop.ceps.eu/BookDetail.php?item_id=1521

• ERT (2010), ERT’s Vision for a Competitive Europe in 2025, Brussels http://www.ert.be/DOC%5C09117.pdf

• Sapir, A. (2007), European Strategies for Growth, in: Artis & Nixon,ed.s, Economics of the EU, fourth ed.

• European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, SEC(2010) 114 final, Lisbon Strategy evaluation document, Brussels, 2.2.2010

• Tilford, S. and White, P. (2009), The Lisbon Scoreboard IX, how to emerge from the wreckage, London, CER [www.cer.org.uk]

• Fandel, M.-H. and Zuleeg, F. (2008), Multi-level governance: the new frontier for European Better Regulation, EPC and Bertelsmann Foundation , September, www.bertelsmann-stiftung.org.

• Gros, D. & F. Roth, 2012, The Europe 2020 strategy – can it maintain the EU’s competitiveness in the world ?, Brussels, CEPS, www.ceps.eu

…on regulatory heterogeneity:

• Kox, H. And Lejour, A. (2005), Regulatory heterogeneity as obstacle for international services trade, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis

• InterTradeIreland (2009): Regulatory Barriers to Cross-Border Trade and Business, report carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers, June 2009

• Cuijpers, C. and Koops, B-J. (2010): How Fragmentation in European Law Undermines Consumer Protection: The Case of Location-Based Services, European Law Review, Vol. 33, pp. 880-897

• Paul Coebergh Van Den Braak (2010): The Practitioners View, Prosperous European Product Market Is Our Ongoing Business, in Maria Guimarais/ Ana Faria (eds.): Product Market Integration. A Multifaced Approach, International Business & Management v. 26, 2010

37

- 37 -

• J. M. Fournier (2015), The heterogeneity of product market regulations, OECD Economics dept. Working Paper no. 1182

• Majone, G. (2010): Harmonization and Mutual Recognition in an Enlarged Union, in Maria Guimamarais/ Ana Faria (eds.): Product Market Integration. A Multifaced Approach, International Business & Management v. 26, 2010

• Boutellis-Taft, O. (2010), Delivering on the post-Lisbon Strategy: the contribution of business, in EPC, 2010, Europe 2020: Delivering well-being for future Europeans, Brusssels, March 2010

• Waterworth, J. (2010), A Digital Single Market for a Digital Society, in EPC, 2010, Europe 2020: Delivering well-being for future Europeans, Brusssels, March 2010

• English, S. and Wight, M. (2010), A European strategy that directly engages business, in EPC, 2010, Europe 2020: Delivering well-being for future Europeans, Brussels, March 2010

On national reforms, in a Eurozone/EU context [or, how to render MS reforms effective for EU?] • Eur Commission (2014), Market reforms at work ; in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece,

European Economy 5/2014 (DG EcFin) • Brinke, A. auf dem, & H. Enderlein (2017), How to make sense of the structural reform lists

for the euro area, Berlin, Jacques Delors Institute, Policy Paper 184, January • J. Varga, W. Roeger & J in ’t Veld (2013), Growth effects of structural reforms in Southern

Europe, Economic Papers 511, Dec (DG EcFin) • D. Lorenzani & J. Varga (2014), The economic impact of digital structural reforms, Economic

Papers 529, Sept., DG EcFin • M. Demertzis & I. Goncalves Raposo (2018), Structural reforms 0.0 – the case for

strengthening institutions, Bruegel Blog, 3 May • K. Berti & E. Meyermans (2017), Maximising the impact of labour and product market

reforms in the euro area, Quarterly Report on the Euro area, Vol. 16, 2 • T. Andersen & C. Keuschnigg (2017), Labour market reforms – repairing problems or

investing to prevent?, Bertelsmann, www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de • Eur Commission (2016), State-owned enterprises in the EU: lessons learnt and ways forward,

Institutional Paper 031, July, • EP (2017), Structural reform support programme 2017 – 2020, Briefing, June, PE 599.357 • EP (2018), Reform Support programme 2021 – 2027, Briefing, July, PE 625.150 • F. Giugliano & C. Odendahl (2016), Europe’s make-or-break country - what is wrong with

Italy’s economy?, London , CER, Dec ; www.cer.org.uk • EP (2018), Country-specific Recommendations for 2018, a comparison of COM and Council

texts, In-depth analysis, PE 624.416 • EP (2018), Economic dialogue and exchange of views with the presidents of the Council,

ECON 11 and 12 July, In-depth analysis, (on Eur Semester , etc.) ; www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/624419/IPOL_IDA(2018)624419_EN.pdf

…on insufficient centralization (but see also banking, Single Sky, networks, patents)

• Pelkmans, J. and Renda, A (2011), Single eComms Market? No Such Thing…, Communication and Strategy, No. 82, 2nd quarter 2011

38

- 38 -

• The EU consumer policy failure, in Cuypers & Koops, Eur. Law Review 2010 , • European Commission (2007), First report on the implementation of the Single European Sky

Legislation, COM (2007) 845 of 20 Dec. 2007 • European Commission (2008), Single European Sky II: towards more sustainable and better

performing aviation, COM (2008) 389 of 25 June 2008 • European Commisssion (2011), Report on the implementation of the Single Sky legislation:

time to deliver, COM(2011) 731 of 14 November 2011 • Various articles and studies by the airlines industry, go to www.aea.be • Eurocontrol, The Single European Sky

http://www.eurocontrol.int/dossiers/single-european-sky • European Commission, the Single European Sky

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/single_european_sky/single_european_sky_en.htm … on financial Supervision and Banking crisis management

• Pisani-Ferry, J. and Sapir, A. (2010), Banking crisis management in the EU: an early assessment, Economic Policy April 2010, pp. 341–373

• Carmassi, J., C. di Noia & S. Micossi, Banking Union in the Eurozone and the EU, CEPS Commentary, 12 June 2012

• Pisani-Ferry, J, A. Sapir, N. Veron & G. Wolff, 2012, What kind of European Banking Union ?, Bruegel Policy Contribution, 2012/ 12, June, www.bruegel.org

• Pelkmans, J. (2014), Designing a genuine EMU : which unions for EU and Eurozone?, College of Europe, BEEP Briefing no. 34, July [ is partly about the banking union]

Session 10

• BERR (2008) [UK ministry for business, etc.], Regulation and innovation: evidence and policy implications, BERR Economics Paper no. 4, London

• Blind, K. (2012), The impact of regulation on innovation, NESTA WP 12/02, London • Blind, K. (2013), The impact of standardisation and standards on innovation, NESTA WP

13/15, London • Frontier Economics (2012), The impact of regulation on growth, London, BIS [UK ministry of

trade and industry] • Aldy, J. & W.K. Viscusi (2008), Adjusting the value of a statistical life for age and cohort

effects, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 90, 3, pp. 573 – 581 • Biausque, V. (2011), The value of statistical life : a meta analysis, Paris, OECD • Graham, J. (2008), from session 4 • Hahn, R. & R. Litan (2005), Counting regulatory benefits and costs : lessons for the US and

Europe, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 8,2, pp. 473 – 508, (June) • Mrozek, J. & L. Taylor (2002), What determines the value of life? A meta analysis, Journal of

Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 21,2, pp. 253 – 270 • Navrud, S. & H. Lindhjem (2011), Valuing mortality risk reductions in regulatory analysis of

environmental, health and transport policies, policy implications, Paris, OECD • Viscusi, W.K. (2003), The value of risks for life and health, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.

31, 4, pp. 1912 – 1946 • Viscusi, W. K. (2004), The value of life : estimates with risks by occupation and industry,

Economic Inquiry, Vol. 42, 10, pp. 29 – 48 • Rimkute, D. & M. Haverland (2014), How does the European Commission use scientific

expertise?, Comparative European Politics, January

39

- 39 -

• A. Renda, L. Schrefler, G. Luchetta & R. Zavatti (2013), Assessing the costs and benefits of regulation, see http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/131210_cba_study_sg_final.pdf

• Report of the RSB/SG/JRC working group (2018), Quantification in Commission Impact Assessments and Evaluations, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/report-of-rsb-sg-jrc-working-group--for-publication_en.pdf