1. A serious shift in EU

in Balkans 2018 · Baltics 2018 · Economics 2018 · Germany 2018 · Great Britain 2018 · Nation 2018 · Politics 2018 · Skepticism 2018 219 views / 6 comments
77% посетителей прочитало эту публикацию


GEOMETR.IT  bruegel.org


  * Conventional wisdom holds that trade liberalisation benefits all countries, though not necessarily equally

Within countries, however, while most individuals stand to gain from trade, some might lose out, in particular those workers whose jobs are displaced by trade liberalisation (Lawrence 2014).

The recognition that trade liberalisation might hurt some workers led the US Congress to establish the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programme under the 1962 Trade Act authorising the US to participate in the Kennedy Round of multilateral trade negotiations.

Initially meant to provide income support to workers losing their jobs as a result of the negotiations, the TAA programme was amended in 1974 to aid all workers negatively affected by increased imports, and has remained in operation ever since. For a long time, no such programme existed at the EU level – because EU member states typically have much more generous welfare systems than the US and are therefore better able to cope with the ‘pains from trade’.

With the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), established in 2007, the EU got an instrument broadly comparable to the TAA programme. The EGF provides financial assistance to facilitate the re-integration into employment of workers who have lost their jobs as a result of globalisation.

The creation of the EGF was a political acknowledgment that the EU, which has exclusive competence over trade policy, should assume some budgetary responsibility for the economic displacement that globalisation entails. Since the money involved in EGF programmes only amounts to a tiny fraction of social expenditures by EU member states, it was recognised from the start that EGF programmes needed to be both politically visible and economically sensible.

In the context of the current negotiations on the post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), in a recent paper we evaluate the EGF programme after ten years of activity and make recommendations on how to improve it (Claeys and Sapir 2018).

The EGF’s procedures and implementation since 2007

The EGF’s original objective was to co-finance – together with national authorities in charge of implementing programmes at the local level – policies to help workers negatively affected by globalisation find new jobs. The co-funding rate has changed several times since the creation of the Fund, but the EGF share has been 60% since 2014.

Given their contingent nature, there is no precise commitment for EGF expenditures in the MFF. The Framework only defines an annual cap, which was originally €500 million per year for the 2007-13 budgetary cycle. This cap was reduced to €150 million per year for the 2014-20 MFF, amounting to roughly 0.1% of the EU budget, which itself equals about 1% of the EU’s GDP.

In terms of procedures, applications need to fulfil three basic requirements to be eligible for EGF financing.

First, redundancies must result from globalisation, defined as a substantial increase in imports into the EU, a serious shift in EU trade of goods or services, a rapid decline of the EU’s market share in a given sector, or the offshoring of activities to non-EU countries.

In 2009, the scope of the EGF programme was enlarged to redundancies resulting from “the global financial and economic crisis”. When the EGF was revised again in 2013, it was decided that the scope of the programme would continue to cover situations arising from the “continuation of the global financial and economic crisis… or as a result of a new global financial and economic crisis”.

Second, applications must concern a fairly large minimum number of workers.

The original number was 1,000 redundancies in a particular firm or in a group of SMEs located in one or two contiguous regions. The threshold was reduced to 500 in 2009.  Though not a stated objective, political visibility seems therefore to be an obvious goal of the EGF.

Third, EGF applications must exclusively finance active labour market measures to re-train and re-employ redundant workers.

Between 2007 and 2016, 147 applications to the EGF – covering 140,545 redundant workers – were approved. The total number of workers who actually benefitted from EGF financing was about 20% less than the number of eligible workers, because some of these workers had already found a new job by the time their EGF application was funded.

Although originally designed to deal with the consequences of globalisation, the EGF has actually been used more often to deal with redundancies caused by the crisis – 52% of cases, covering 51% of the redundant workers and awarded 55% of the funding, related to the crisis fallout rather than globalisation.

Figure 1 gives the total number of targeted workers and the total funding committed under the EGF, broken down between ‘globalisation’ and ‘crisis’ for each year from 2007 to 2016. The maximum amount of funding awarded by the EGF in any year was €132 million in 2010 (€115 million for the crisis and only €17 million for globalisation), which explains why the annual EGF envelope was lowered from €500 million to €150 million in 2013.

The average amount of EGF funding awarded per worker over the period 2007-16 was €4,219. Given that over the period, the average share of co-financing provided by member states was 42%, it means that each redundant worker eligible under the EGF received on average €7,274 in active labour market services, a fairly substantial amount.

* The publication is not an editorial. It reflects solely the point of view and argumentation of the author. The publication is presented in the presentation. Start in the previous issue. The original is available at: org

* * *


С праздником ПАСХИ НЕТЛЕННОЙ!  13.04.2018

ООН. Доклад о ситуации с правами человека в Украине   13.04.2018

The Balkans in a split with the EU   13.04.2018

Deutschland sinkt langsam  13.04.2018

Europa: vom Kopf auf die Füße  13.04.2018

Nastroje Ukraińców ?  13.04.2018

The world’s pressing challenges.  13.04.2018



  1. Resilience needs to be built up in both the internal and the external dimensions. The rising Security and Defence Union will rest on three pillars: the SecurityUnion, the Defence Union and EU-NATO cooperation. While functionally and regionally flexible, political power will nevertheless be concentrated and institutionalised within the CFSP. Typical interior policy areas such as cyber security, migration or antiterrorism are becoming fields of action for the CFSP. Simultaneously, foreign and security policy – which used to be purely political areas – are increasingly subject to legal reform and incorporation into the European legal community

  2. EU members share a customs union; a single market in which goods, services, people, and capital
    move freely (known as the “four freedoms”); a common trade policy; a common agricultural
    policy; and a common currency (the euro), which is used by 19 member states (collectively
    referred to as the “eurozone”). Twenty-two EU members participate in the Schengen area of free
    movement, in which individuals may travel without passport checks. In addition, the EU has
    taken steps to develop common foreign and security policies, has sought to build common
    internal security measures, and remains committed to enlargement, especially to the countries of
    the Western Balkans.

  3. The first challenge is to find and deliver a 21st century growth model that delivers jobs and sustainable livelihoods to the young people of Europe and to the billion people around the world living in absolute poverty. Yet, the EU’s strategy for growth is driven by a domestic agenda, even though better trade, international taxation and global financial management all offer great opportunities to not only improve economic prospects in Europe, but to simultaneously lift developing countries out of poverty.

  4. . EU initiatives in the CAR show what can be achieved when the EU deploys all its assets. Replicating these will require unity of purpose and strong leadership with the mandate from EU member states to lead and coordinate. Europe needs peace beyond its borders in order to guarantee the safety of its own citizens.

  5. Seen from the outside, the EU is a source of goods and services, technology, aid and inclusive and accountable political and social models. At its best, the EU can contribute technical, institutional and financial resources to achieve global public goods.

  6. It is perfectly possible that Europe’s long and arduous political process will leave us stranded at this crucial juncture; counting votes in the EU Council or Parliament when our best leaders are most needed on the international stage.

Добавить комментарий

Your email address will not be published.