Renaud Thillaye – författare

High-growth and innovative firms are the drivers of tomorrow’s jobs and our future prosperity. Supporting these firms, including how they can access finance, should be one of the highest policy priorities of European governments. By seeking to provide deeper pools of capital across the EU for firms and reducing dependence on bank financing, the EU’s proposed Capital Markets Union initiative can make a significant contribution to this agenda.This publication focuses on how the Capital Markets Union might lead to tangible gains in investment and jobs growth. It is based on a micro analysis of the challenges faced by growth and innovative firms in six large member states. The report proposes a bottom-up policy agenda to complement the EU’s approach, focused on improving the tax, legal and business support environment for investors and firms.

High-growth and innovative firms are the drivers of tomorrow’s jobs and our future prosperity. Supporting these firms, including how they can access finance, should be one of the highest policy priorities of European governments. By seeking to provide deeper pools of capital across the EU for firms and reducing dependence on bank financing, the EU’s proposed Capital Markets Union initiative can make a significant contribution to this agenda.This publication focuses on how the Capital Markets Union might lead to tangible gains in investment and jobs growth. It is based on a micro analysis of the challenges faced by growth and innovative firms in six large member states. The report proposes a bottom-up policy agenda to complement the EU’s approach, focused on improving the tax, legal and business support environment for investors and firms.

The main parameters of the EU budget are decided upon every seven years when the MFF (Multi-annual Financial Framework) is negotiated. Before the end of 2016, EU institutions will undertake a mid-term review of the EU’s 2014-2020. This comes in a context of severe turbulences for the EU project: a difficult economic and social situation in most member states, huge migration pressures and new security threats stemming from an unstable environment, and the Britain’s decision to leave the EU. At the same time, EU countries need to face up to climate change and engineer a smooth transition towards an innovation-based sustainable economic model. The EU’s very survival depends on the ability to respond to these multiple challenges in the next few years. Making a smarter and more strategic use of the €960 billion MFF has become a necessity. Can the EU Spend Better? argues that the scope for a substantial revision of the MFF is limited in the short-term. At most, pressing issues such as terrorism and the deteriorated social situation will lead to greater flexibility in the use of existing envelopes. However, the debate starting in 2017 over the next MFF provides with the opportunity of more substantial shifts in four main directions: more investment- and performance-oriented spending; the expansion of climate conditionality to all spending areas; more targeted redistributive spending matched with greater reform conditionality; a more outward-looking budget.

The main parameters of the EU budget are decided upon every seven years when the MFF (Multi-annual Financial Framework) is negotiated. Before the end of 2016, EU institutions will undertake a mid-term review of the EU’s 2014-2020. This comes in a context of severe turbulences for the EU project: a difficult economic and social situation in most member states, huge migration pressures and new security threats stemming from an unstable environment, and the Britain’s decision to leave the EU. At the same time, EU countries need to face up to climate change and engineer a smooth transition towards an innovation-based sustainable economic model. The EU’s very survival depends on the ability to respond to these multiple challenges in the next few years. Making a smarter and more strategic use of the €960 billion MFF has become a necessity. Can the EU Spend Better? argues that the scope for a substantial revision of the MFF is limited in the short-term. At most, pressing issues such as terrorism and the deteriorated social situation will lead to greater flexibility in the use of existing envelopes. However, the debate starting in 2017 over the next MFF provides with the opportunity of more substantial shifts in four main directions: more investment- and performance-oriented spending; the expansion of climate conditionality to all spending areas; more targeted redistributive spending matched with greater reform conditionality; a more outward-looking budget.

The centre left is at a crossroads. Social democracy as a model for social and economic organisation was one of the most remarkable achievements of the 20th Century. Yet today, it comes short of offering attractive and credible new ideas that address the challenges of contemporary societies.Navigating this juncture will be crucial to the centre left’s future as the traditional ties that bound its support unravel. By championing flexible service provision models and a more deliberative form of democracy, progressives can make citizens feel they have a tangible stake in their future.This volume does not claim to have all the answers, but it has gathered ideas which provide the groundwork for reframing the debate. It offers new routes towards a state which is fit for the century it serves and a framework for an engaged and educated citizenry.