Turkey and the EU [What Think Tanks are thinking]

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

Relationship between Europe and Turkey

© viperagp / Fotolia

Relations between Turkey and the European Union have been strained for some time, and most recently, Ankara became embroiled in a diplomatic spat with Germany and the Netherlands, following decisions in both countries to prevent Turkish ministers from addressing rallies of expatriate Turks. On 16 April, the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will hold a referendum to expand presidential powers.

Mr Erdogan has said that Turkey, an EU candidate country, may review its relations with the Union after the coming vote. Government officials have also threatened to ditch last year’s agreement between the EU and Turkey that has helped to stem the flow of migrants into Europe. In November, 2016, the European Parliament passed a resolution, calling for Turkey’s EU entry talks to be suspended until Ankara ended its ‘disproportionate’ and repressive response to a failed coup in July that year.

This note offers links to a series of recent studies and comments from major international think tanks and research institutes on Turkey and its relations with the EU. More reports on the EU enlargement process can be found in a previous edition of ‘What think tanks are thinking’.

Turkey and the EU

Turkey, the European Union and the refugee crisis: A story of multiple failures
Friends of Europe, March 2017

How the EU should respond to Erdoğan’s constitutional coup d’état
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2017

New directions for European assistance in Turkey
Carnegie Europe, March 2017

The migration paradox and EU-Turkey relations
Instituto Affari Internazionali, December 2016

Dear Europe: Don’t drop Turkey
European Council on Foreign Relations, December 2016

The EU-Turkey March 2016 agreement as a model: New refugee regimes and practices in the Arab Mediterranean and the case of Libya
Instituto Affari Internazionali, December 2016

Taking Turkey seriously
European Council on Foreign Relations, December 2016

Turkey needs a soft exit from the EU
Carnegie Europe, November 2016

The EU-Turkey deal and its implications for the asylum capacities of EU border countries
Istituto Affari Internazionali, November 2016

Trouble on the tracks: Averting the Turkey-EU ‘train wreck
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2016

Die Syrienkrise: Die Auswirkungen auf die Beziehungen der EU und der NATO zur Türkei
Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik, October 2016

After the EU-Turkey refugee deal: A perspective from Turkey
Clingendael, October 2016

The impact of the EU-Turkey statement on protection and reception: The case of Greece
Istituto Affari Internazionali, Stiftung Mercator, Istanbul Policy, October 2016

Success or failure? Assessment of the Readmission Agreement between the EU and Turkey from the legal and political perspectives
Institute of International Relations Prague, October 2016

A breakthrough year in relations between Turkey and the European Union: An attempt to take stock
Centre for Eastern Studies, October 2016

Turkey and the European Union: Scenarios for 2023
Istituto Affari Internazionali, September 2016

The EU-Turkey stalemate: Detecting the root causes of the dysfunctional relationship
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, September 2016

Turkey’s internal situation

Turkey and the codification of autocracy
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2017

Turkey’s domestically driven foreign policy
Carnegie Europe, February 2017

Turquie: Du kémalisme au néo-ottomanisme
Institut français des relations internationales, January 2017

A tale of two Turkeys
Brookings Institution, January 2017

Constitutional changes in Turkey: A presidential system or the president’s system?
European Policy Centre, January 2017

Turkey’s gift from god
Carnegie Europe, January 2017

Terror continues in polarized Turkey
German Marshall Fund, January 2017

From purges to a ‘new Turkey’: The final stage of the state’s reconstruction
Centre for Eastern Studies, December 2016

Turkey’s Kurdish conflict: 2015-present
Institute for Security and Development Policy, December 2016

Turkey’s nuclear program: Challenges and opportunities
Atlantic Council, December 2016

The limits of Turkey’s post-coup attempt consensus and emerging new political realignment
German Marshall Fund, November 2016

Purge en Turquie: la stratégie autoritaire d’Erdogan. Observatoire de la Turquie et de son environnement géopolitique
Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques, November 2016

The economic track record of pious populists: Evidence from Turkey
Forum for research on Eastern Europe and Emerging Economies, Free Network, November 2016

Turkey’s refugee crisis: The politics of permanence
International Crisis Group, November 2016

Fighting corruption in the Western Balkans and Turkey: Priorities for reform
Transparency International, November 2016

Youth exclusion and the transformative impact of organized youth in Turkey
Istituto Affari Internazionali, October 2016

Co-benefits of climate action: Assessing Turkey’s climate pledge
NewClimate Institute for Climate Policy and Global Sustainability, October 2016

What is the Turkish military’s strategic identity after July 15?
Isambul Policy Center, September 2016

The good, the bad and the Gülenists
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2016

The evolving approach to refugee protection in Turkey: Assessing the practical and political needs
Migration Policy Institute, September 2016

A ‘new’ Turkey?
Clingendael, August 2016

Turkey’s failed coup: A night of irony (and fear)
Foundation for European Progressive Studies, July 2016

Turkey’s external relations

Turkey’s unpalatable choices in Syria
German Marshall Fund, March 2017

Reducing risks in Turkey’s neighborhood
German Marshall Fund, March 2017

Noch mehr Distanz zum Westen. Warum sich Ankara nach Moskau orientiert
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2017

Turkey’s role in natural gas: becoming a transit country?
E3G, January 2017

Beyond the myth of partnership: Rethinking US policy toward Turkey
Bipartisan Policy Center, December 2016

The Turkish-Russian rapprochement: How real? How durable?
Rand Corporation, November 2016

U.S.-Turkey relations under Trump may hinge more on Turkey than on Trump
Brookings Institution, November 2016

Syrians in Turkey: The economics of integration
Al Sharq Forum, September 2016

How to deal with post-coup Turkey?
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, September 2016

Why Turkey’s disapproval of the West’s response to the coup has limited merit
Chatham House, August 2016

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/24/turkey-and-the-eu-what-think-tanks-are-thinking/

Mapping the future of Syria: State of play and options

Written by Patryk Pawlak,

Two soldiers raise the Syrian flag on top of the mountain

© vladimirfloyd / Fotolia

Despite the humanitarian and security crisis, progress towards a United Nations (UN) negotiated political settlement of the conflict has been slow, mostly on account of disagreement over President Bashar al-Assad’s future. The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 on 18 December 2015 – setting out a roadmap for a peace process in Syria with a clear transition timeline – offered new hope but failed to produce results. After several failed attempts at a cessation of hostilities, the ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey in December 2016, including a monitoring mechanism for violations, opened the way for a new UN Security Council Resolution 2336 which was adopted unanimously on 31 December 2016. The resolution provided an impulse for re-booting the political process during the talks in Astana at the beginning of 2017.

At the same time, the discussion about the future of Syria revolves around questions linked to the future of the Assad regime, territorial integrity of Syria, political accountability, the creation of safe zones, and the reconstruction work that will follow a potential peace agreement. In March 2017, the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, presented a joint communication providing elements of an EU strategy for Syria. For its part, the European Parliament has focused on addressing the implications of the refugee crisis, strengthening EU humanitarian assistance in Iraq and Syria and aid to vulnerable communities, and improving the EU response to the terrorist threat posed by ISIL/Da’esh.

This is an updated edition of a briefing published in January 2016. See also our briefings on the impact of the Syrian crisis on Jordan and Lebanon.


Read this complete briefing on ‘Mapping the future of Syria: State of play and options‘ in PDF.


EU Member States' contributions to the Madad Fund

EU Member States’ contributions to the Madad Fund

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/24/mapping-the-future-of-syria-state-of-play-and-options/

Summertime: changing of the clocks, but why?

Daylight Saving Summer

Felix Pergande / Fotolia

Citizens recurrently turn to the European Parliament with comments on the changing of the clocks. Some citizens are in favour of the summertime /wintertime arrangements; others call on the Parliament to abolish it. On Sunday 26 March 2017 clocks go forward, but why?

In fact, twice a year the clocks in all EU Member States are switched back by one hour from summer to wintertime (on the last Sunday in October) and forward one hour from winter to summertime (on the last Sunday in March)


This is an updated version of EP Answer: ‘ Wintertime: why change the clocks?’ published on 26 October 2016


Harmonising varying summertime arrangements

The standard time is wintertime and during the summer the time is put forward 60 minutes. The decision on the standard time falls within the competence of Member States. Most Member States had introduced summer time in the 1970s, although some had started applying it much earlier for varying lengths of time. Since the 1980s the EU legislator, i.e. the European Parliament and the Council, have adopted several directives harmonising step by step the varying summertime arrangements, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. The main idea is to provide stable, long-term planning which is important for the proper functioning of certain economic sectors, especially transport.

EU legislation and its implications

The current reference text in EU legislation with regard to summertime arrangements for all Member States is Directive 2000/84/EC.

Main justifications for changing the clocks

In 2007, the European Commission published a report on the impact of this directive, providing a chronology of the European legislation and its implications for different sectors of activity. The reports concludes that ‘apart from the fact that it provides greater opportunities for a wide range of evening leisure activities and produces some energy savings, summer time has little impact and the current arrangements are not a subject at the forefront of people’s minds in the EU Member States.  No Member State has expressed a wish to abandon summer time or change the provisions of the current Directive. On the contrary, it is important to maintain the harmonised timetable to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, which is the main objective of the Directive.’

In 2014, the Commission commissioned another study on the harmonisation of summertime in Europe. The study, entitled ‘The application of summertime in Europe‘, concludes that if summertime was not harmonised in the Union, it would entail substantial inconvenience and disturbance for citizens and businesses alike.

Public hearing and parliamentary questions

In view of the concerns expressed by citizens regarding the summertime arrangements, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have submitted various parliamentary questions asking whether the Commission is planning to propose to repeal Directive 2000/84/EC on summertime arrangements.

In its answer of 8 February 2017, the Commission makes clear that independently from the specific time zone a Member State has decided to apply on its territory, every Member State has to apply the summertime and move the clocks one hour ahead on the last Sunday of March and move the clocks back to wintertime on the last Sunday of October.

In its answer of 1 September 2015, the Commission refers to the abovementioned study and concludes that, at this stage, it has no intention to propose the revision or repeal of Directive 2000/84/EC. Furthermore, the Commission states in its reply of 3 February 2016‘that Directive 2000/84/EC (also called Summertime Directive) obliges all Member States to switch from winter‐ to summer-time and vice-versa, at the precise points in time specified therein. The aim is to ensure the proper operation of the internal market, notably (but not exclusively) in the areas of transport and communications. Omission by a Member State of those changes would amount to a breach of the Summertime Directive.’

Furthermore, three parliamentary committees held a joint public hearing entitled ‘Time to Revisit Summer Time?” on 24 March 2015. Since the hearing, new parliamentary questions have been submitted, pointing to experts’ findings that the current summertime arrangements have more negative than positive effects.

The public hearing on summertime changes in Europe and the subsequent oral question of 25 September 2015 addressed to the Commission were also subject to a plenary debate on 29 October with Violeta Bulc, European Commissioner for Transport.

During the debate, the Commissioner stated that different studies on the subject matter examined by the Commission present mixed results and no conclusive argument was to be gained from them regarding potential impacts on health, energy savings or other impacts. Furthermore the Member States consulted by the Commissioner were divided on this subject. ‘So, at this stage, the Commission is not considering changes to the relevant directive but, should new evidence emerge and a more systemic approach be put forward, we would be willing to reconsider that position’, Commissioner Bulc stated.

In that direction, several Members of the European Parliament have put an oral question on 17 October 2016. MEPs ask for a full assessment of the costs and benefits of the directive in particular for energy, health, agriculture and transport sectors, the effects on citizens’ health, in particular on sensitive people such as children and the elderly and the impact on competitiveness of European industry, including energy prices and consumptionA debate on the switch between summer and winter time is scheduled for the October II Strasbourg plenary session, the verbatim debate for 27 October 2016 is available here.

The Commission has announced that it is looking into the issue of summer and winter time. This will include an analysis of the impact of the current arrangements in the Member States, based on available evidence.

Petitions

For years, the summertime arrangements have also been subject of petitions that citizens have submitted to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, for example Petition 1477/2012. Information on petitions and procedures for submitting a petition to the European Parliament are available on the Parliament’s Petitions website.

 

Do you have any questions on this issue or another EP-related concern? Please use our web form. You write, we answer.

 

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/24/summertime-changing-of-the-clocks-but-why/

What future for global trade?

Written by Krisztina Binder,

What Future for Global TradeWorldwide, countries are facing major international trade challenges. Trade policy was at the forefront of the 2016 United States presidential campaign, and the new US administration’s approach leans toward global trade restriction. Protectionist pressures, not to mention concerns regarding the potential effects of Brexit, are increasing on the world stage. Against this backdrop, the EPRS External Policies Unit and the Secretariat of Parliament’s Committee on International Trade organised a joint event on ‘What future for global trade?’, on 9 March 2017. The objective of the roundtable discussion, which brought members of European and third country parliaments and trade experts together, was to analyse some of the main issues that might influence future global trade flows and negotiations. The discussion followed the 38th session of the Steering Committee of the WTO Parliamentary Conference, held on the same day. MPs from third countries taking part in the WTO meeting, along with their European counterparts, also participated in the event.

‘We need rules-based trade in a fair and inclusive manner’ Bernd Lange (S&D, Germany)

Although the general consensus was that trade is beneficial for societal welfare and contributes to reducing world poverty, the discussion revealed that the opinion that global trade is unfair and trade benefits are not equally distributed is growing worldwide. Speakers agreed that this criticism of rising inequality in the globalised trading system cannot be ignored, and that reflection is necessary, particularly from, on how to address this problem. Moreover, it was agreed that a commitment to a rules-based trading system is needed.

Bernd Lange (S&D, Germany), Chair of the Committee on International Trade, pointed out in his keynote speech that trade is the engine for growth and employment in the EU. To gain clear support from citizens, the EU needs a trade policy that, in addition to the technical aspects such as trade barriers, also deals with the need for a stable society and allows for a more equal division of the benefits of trade. To reach these objectives, Lange called for transparency, not only with respect to EU trade policy targets and tools, but also as regards World Trade Organization activities. Lange called for a fair, inclusive, and more transparent trade policy, continued support for a rules-based trading system, and a commitment to the multilateral approach.

ASSEGAF, Nurhayati AliNurhayati Ali Assegaf, Member of the Indonesian Parliament, stated that, more importantly than liberalising trade, the global trade system must create equal opportunities and improve citizens’ prosperity. Ali Assegaf noted that the WTO’s Bali Package was a major breakthrough; delivering on the commitments of the Bali Package and getting the WTO back on track should be seen as a priority in formulating international trade governance. On the other hand, the WTO has to also reach out to marginalised and most vulnerable persons. The Indonesian House of Representatives is therefore a proponent of a just and fair multilateral trading system.

The temptation of protectionism

Speakers also reflected on a current major trade concern, the new US administration’s trade policy. Professor of Economics Paola Conconi of the Université Libre de Bruxelles argued that during the approach to elections, US politicians in general tend to become more protectionist, and this trend can also be observed in the number of WTO disputes initiated. President Trump is therefore not unique in his rhetoric; nevertheless, great uncertainty exists as regards his future actions. Similarly, Peter Chase, Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, noted that, as many citizens view trade as unfair, Donald Trump was not alone among presidential candidates moving towards a protectionist stance during the presidential campaign. On the basis of the March 2017 US Trade Representative policy agenda, among other factors, Chase suggested that the new US administration will follow a ‘mercantilist’, rather than protectionist, trade approach, reflecting the influence of policy-makers associated with the manufacturing sector. Pierre Sauvé, Senior Trade Specialist at the World Bank Group, stated that if we look at the slowdown in cross-border trade in recent years, it is evident that different factors, some of a cyclical nature, others more structural in character, such as far-reaching technological change, affecting manufacturing and service industries alike, are in play. Sauvé noted that the influence of trade and investment protection is not on the whole as significant as might be assumed. Protectionism is generally held in check thanks to the WTO’s close monitoring. However, more recently, it seems that policy uncertainties are influencing consumption and investment decisions.

What to expect?

Laura PUCCIO; CONCONI, Paola; Peter, CHASE; Peter Chase suggested maintaining a ’wait-and-see’ stance, as the Trump administrations’ approach to trade may change and become more moderated. Recommending that countries with mercantilist policies review the benefits of such an approach, and Chase argued that focusing on respect of the rules-based system can lead to enforcement of the WTO regime. Pierre Sauvé, while mentioning the growing uncertainties regarding trade rule-making and international cooperation, highlighted that significant advances have been made in multilateral trade governance and in preferential trade and investment rule-making recently, for instance, the conclusion of the EU-Canada trade agreement. Sauvé underlined that more serious commitments at national level and for international cooperation are needed to address the distributional downsides of globalisation. Pierre Sauvé also mentioned that these developments will nevertheless not lead to the end of global value chains. Furthermore, Paola Conconi explained that the outcome of the Brexit negotiations depends to a large extent on the rules of origin on which the EU and the United Kingdom agree, which in turn will affect global value chains, as they will have a significant impact on sourcing decisions.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/24/what-future-for-global-trade/

Towards low-emission EU mobility

Written by Marketa Pape,

Illustration of an isolated ambulance icon with the text CO2

© jpgon / Fotolia

While EU transport systems provide the mobility European society needs, they also create severe environmental pressures and are responsible for a quarter of EU greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Transport activity is expected to grow still further and become the largest source of EU GHG emissions after 2030.

Meanwhile, the EU has joined global efforts to limit climate change and pledged to reduce its CO2 emissions significantly. In line with this commitment, it has set out to transform itself into a low-carbon economy. This implies a systemic change towards low-emission mobility, which in turn requires modern and clean transport without compromising European mobility and competitiveness.

The European Commission has put forward a comprehensive strategy for low-emission mobility to accelerate the transformation, focusing on three main areas. Firstly, it seeks to improve transport-system efficiency by employing digital technologies, smart road charging and promoting multimodality. Secondly, it encourages the deployment of low-emission alternative energy for transport, such as electricity and advanced biofuels. And thirdly, it outlines measures for moving towards zero-emission vehicles. In addition, several horizontal initiatives seek to provide coherence between transport and other policy areas and create an environment enabling new digital technologies, research and innovation, energy, investment, and skills.

While reactions to the strategy have mainly been positive, stakeholders also stressed the need for a technology-neutral approach, taking the whole emission cycle and the need for a level playing field between transport modes into account.


Read this complete briefing on ‘Towards low-emission EU mobility‘ in PDF.


 

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/23/towards-low-emission-eu-mobility/

Spirit drinks: Definition, labelling and geographical indications [EU Legislation in Progress]

Written by Tarja Laaninen (1st edition),

Spirit drinks: Definition, labelling and geographical indications

© Jeff Baumgart / Shutterstock.com

In December 2016, the European Commission proposed to replace Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 – the Spirit Drinks Regulation – with a new one, with the aim of aligning it with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The proposal mainly involves grouping the provisions adopted by the Commission into delegated and implementing acts. In addition, it replaces the existing procedures for the protection of geographical indications (GIs) of spirit drinks with new ones, modelled on the recently updated procedures for quality schemes applied to agricultural products.

The purpose and scope of the existing regulation would remain unchanged; the few technical adjustments introduced to its text are only aimed at simplifying and clarifying it. However, according to spirits industry representatives, the proposal contains some substantive changes that need to be studied in detail to determine their impact. The procedure is still in its initial stages.

Interactive PDF

Stage: National parliaments

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/23/spirit-drinks-definition-labelling-and-geographical-indications-eu-legislation-in-progress/

Understanding social dumping in the European Union

Written by Monika Kiss,

schwarzarbeit

© lekcets / Fotolia

Although a recurring term in discussions related to working mobility, wages and the social security of workers, social dumping has neither a generally accepted definition, nor easily definable limits. It is rather a set of practices on an international, national or inter-corporate level, aimed at gaining an advantage over competitors, which could have important negative consequences on economic processes and workers’ social security. Examples include actions taken by actors from ‘low wage’ Member States to gain market advantage over actors from Member States with higher pay and social standards; multinational companies from ‘high wage’ countries searching for ways to avoid legal constraints by employing subcontractors from low-wage countries; and companies engaging cheaper and more vulnerable temporary and agency workers, or relocating production to lower wage and less regulated locations. Social dumping takes different forms in different sectors.

Suppressing social dumping is a component of different regulations on working mobility, undeclared work, and the status of transport workers. However, as the legislative competence of the European Union is limited in the labour law domain, soft law and social dialogue are also used to tackle the phenomenon. Several cases before the Court of Justice of the EU (such as the Viking and the Laval cases) show that the applicable EU rules can only be effective if adequate implementation and enforcement by the Member States is guaranteed.

In September 2016, the European Parliament adopted an own-initiative resolution on social dumping, calling for a number of actions to reinforce controls, close regulatory gaps, revise working conditions and promote social convergence.


Read this complete briefing on ‘Understanding social dumping in the European Union‘ in PDF.


Social policy fields relevant for the movement of workers

Social policy fields relevant for the movement of workers

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/23/understanding-social-dumping-in-the-european-union/

Hybrid mismatches with third countries [EU Legislation in Progress]

Written by Cécile Remeur (1st edition),

Two scissors with the word tax on the wooden background

© eskay lim / Fotolia

Hybrid mismatch is a situation where a cross-border activity is treated differently for tax purposes by the countries involved, resulting in favourable tax treatment. Hybrid mismatches are used as aggressive tax planning structures, which in turn trigger policy reactions to neutralise their tax effects.

When adopting the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive in July 2016, the Council requested that the Commission put forward a proposal on hybrid mismatches involving third countries. The amendment proposed by the Commission on 25 October broadens the provisions of the directive accordingly. It seeks to neutralise mismatches by obliging Member States to deny the deduction of payments by taxpayers or by requiring taxpayers to include a payment or a profit in their taxable income.

As this is a tax measure, Parliament is consulted only, and the proposal will be adopted by the Council. The Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee is preparing Parliament’s opinion.

Versions

Stage: National Parliaments opinion

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/22/hybrid-mismatches-with-third-countries-eu-legislation-in-progress/

Risk-preparedness in the electricity sector [EU Legislation in Progress]

Written by Gregor Erbach (1st edition),

Risk-preparedness in the electricity sector

© piotrszczepanek / Fotolia

On 30 November 2016, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on risk-preparedness in the electricity sector. This proposal addresses shortcomings in the existing legislation, notably a lack of regional coordination, and differing national rules and procedures. It would replace the existing legislation, and establish common rules on crisis prevention and crisis management in the electricity sector. Regional interdependencies would be taken into account in the preparation of national risk-preparedness plans and in managing crisis situations. The proposed regulation would enhance transparency by requiring an ex-post evaluation of crisis situations.

In the European Parliament, the proposal has been referred to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), which has appointed its rapporteur.

Versions

Stage: National parliaments

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/21/risk-preparedness-in-the-electricity-sector-eu-legislation-in-progress/

EU support for social entrepreneurs

Written by Agnieszka Widuto,

Web

© Julien Eichinger/ Fotolia

Social enterprises combine social goals with entrepreneurial activity. They represent a business model focused on having a positive social or environmental impact rather than simply making profit for shareholders. Social enterprises make a valuable contribution to the economy and society, operating mainly in local communities and covering areas such as education, healthcare, social services, work integration and environmental protection. They are also an increasingly popular choice for outsourcing certain public services of general economic interest.

Social enterprises encounter challenges in their operations, mostly related to regulatory obstacles and difficulties in accessing funding. At EU level the momentum gained by the Social Business Initiative of 2011 is currently being supplemented by regulatory changes such as the review of the regulation on the European Social Entrepreneurship Funds, improving access to public procurement and developing methodologies for measuring social impact. The EU is also making efforts to improve funding opportunities, for instance via the Social Impact Accelerator and the ‘microfinance and social entrepreneurship’ axis of the Employment and Social Innovation programme. Additional funding is made available under the European Structural and Investment Funds, as well as programmes tailored to small and medium-sized enterprises. Expansion of the social economy, however, requires further development of a supportive regulatory environment, a tailored financial ecosystem, and also increased visibility and recognition.


Read this complete briefing on ‘EU support for social entrepreneurs‘ in PDF.


Revenue streams for social enterprises in Europe

Revenue streams for social enterprises in Europe

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/21/eu-support-for-social-entrepreneurs/