Since the launch of the Lisbon strategy in 2000, innovation has been regarded by EU policy-makers as key to long-term growth and a number of initiatives have been developed over the past decade. In light of profound social and economic shifts that have taken place in the meantime, however, it is now time to take a fresh look at a dynamic and renewed policy to drive innovation. This report, undertaken jointly with Ernst and Young, focuses on EU innovation initiatives and identifies changes that would lead to more responsive and dynamic innovation policy.

The use of economics in public policy, in the form of ex ante Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), is strongly advocated by international organizations such as the OECD and the World Bank. In the US and the EU, hundreds of RIAs are produced every year to justify public intervention in the form of regulation. But reality shows that in many other countries the adoption and implementation of this tool has been patchy at best.

CEPS has been subcontracted to provide different briefing notes and reports on issues such as:
- Registration of motor vehicles previously registered in another Member State
- Online survey on costs for beneficiaries of grants & financial institutions under EIP

Provision of impact assessments on the EU’s industrial policy and application of new technologies, including measures relating in SMEs; issues related to research; telecommunication and information society and information communication technology.

This study was carried out by a team composed of better regulation experts and social policy experts from The Evaluation Partnership (TEP) and the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) and was commissioned to support mutual learning on social impact assessment within the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection and Social Inclusion (OMC SPSI).

In the consortium led by the College of Europe, CEPS’ contribution to the study included the definition of a methodology for impact assessment and the definition of the templates and questionnaires for conducting the data collection and business surveys.

This study aimed at providing an in-depth description of potentially unfair commercial practices adopted by financial service providers in the EU27, and at providing insights on why such practices are put in place, with a clear aim to identify instances in which the prominent intent or effect is to limit and/or distort customer choice. In addition, the study aimed at measuring the potential impact of such practices on markets, consumers and businesses (in particular, SMEs), and at identifying a range of potential solutions to the observed problems.

Participation in CEPS lunchtime meetings is a benefit of membership. Non-members may be admitted for €50, paid in cash at registration. A sandwich lunch (€6) will be served before the event, from 12.30 onwards.

Participation in this meeting is free of charge. A sandwich lunch will be offered after the meeting, from 13.30 onwards.

The CEPS Regulatory Affairs Programme was launched in January 2005 with the aim of exploring policy and regulatory challenges in the following areas:

• Better regulation
• Internal Market 
• Competition Policy
• Trade Developments and Policy
• CEPS Digital Forum 

Better Regulation

Notwithstanding the undeniable success of telecoms liberalisation in terms of price reduction, new services and technologies as well as consumer satisfaction, EU telecoms policy is at least a half failure. This might seem hard to believe, but this Policy Brief shows that there is no such thing as an EU telecoms (or eComms) single market. We provide ample empirical economic and regulatory evidence of profound and lingering fragmentation as well as a brief assessment of the flaws of the third eComms package of 2009, now in force.

In this Commentary, CEPS Senior Fellow Jacques Pelkmans is mystified to explain why Mario Monti’s recent report, A new strategy for the single market, has not provoked much reaction, neither among stakeholders in the ‘Brussels circuit’ nor in the member states. In his view, the report should have stimulated lively debate on its highly strategic reflections and active discussions and positioning on the numerous concrete proposals.