RESEARCH ON THE ROLE OF INVESTMENTS IN ENSURING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF MACHINERY ENTERPRISES IN EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES

The EU Response to COVID-19: From Reactive Policies to Strategic Decision-Making.

Data protection and research in the European Union: a major step forward, with a step back

Disharmonization in the Regulation of Transgenic Plants in Europe

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most competitive sectors in Europe and has a strong presence in many European Union (EU) countries. The mutual recognition agreement (MRA) for inspections of medicines manufacturers between the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the EU started by the end of 2017 and gradually extended to all EU member states (MSs) in July 2019. We quantified the number of FDA and EU good manufacturing practice (GMP) inspections carried out in each other's territory between 2009 and 2018. The five EU MSs with the largest number of FDA inspections were Germany, followed by Italy, France, the United Kingdom (UK), and Spain. All of them, with the exception of Germany, were included in the group of the first eight EU MSs recognized by the FDA in the context of the MRA. In 2018, these five EU MSs were within the top 10 EU exporters of pharmaceutical products to the US. Four of these five EU MSs (Italy, Germany, France, and the UK) accounted for 53.4% of the total pharmaceutical production in the EU in 2018. We also studied the type of manufacturing operations covered by the manufacturer's authorizations issued by each EU MS for the manufacturers within its territory. We verified a high prevalence of conventional technology versus complex technology manufacturing for many EU countries. Going forward, this unbalance should be addressed at a national and EU level. Supporting for instance (bio)pharmaceutical manufacturing through pharma policy initiatives, especially for EU countries with a lower level of innovation and technological development, would promote the pharmaceutical manufacturing sustainability and competitiveness of these countries. The full implementation of the MRA between the US FDA and the EU can make it faster and less costly for both sides to bring medicines to the market, improving future competitiveness of the EU and the US pharmaceutical industry.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze a particular aspect of the so-called Dublin Regulation, whose aim is to determine the European Union (EU) Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, that is, the presumption that the EU Member States are “safe countries.” Although the notion of “safe country” is on the base of the Dublin Regulation functioning mechanism, as it implies that any EU Member States can transfer an asylum seeker to any other EU country which is responsible, the authors contend that the safety of an EU Member State can be given as presumed for the purpose of asylum seekers. The analysis of the present work starts, firstly, with the examination of the notion of “safe country” under the Dublin Regulation. In the second part, relying on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) case-law, it will be discussed to what extent the Court of Strasbourg clarifies the notion of “safe countries” and the test it applies to it. Finally, the Commission’s proposal for a recasting of the Dublin Regulation will be analysed with the aim of foresee possible future developments of the EU law mechanisms to rebut such a presumption as applied to the EU Member States. It will emerge that in order to assess the safety of an EU Member State, attention has to be given to the prohibition of both direct and indirect refoulement as well as to the effective remedy at the EU Member State’s domestic level.

Purpose– The purpose of this study is to assess how the recent financial and economic crisis has affected European Union (EU) member states’ ability to attract intellectual capital. The issue was found to be relevant, as one of the key elements of competitiveness today is the ability to attract intellectual capital and the question how the recent financial and economic crisis has changed this ability of EU member states can be asked. The question is relevant in relation to the diversity of effects that the crisis had on EU member states, including, the different levels of real economy adjustment constraints.Design/methodology/approach– The concept of competitiveness applied by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in constructing the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) was used. Based on selected WEF GCI sub-indicators and the WEF’s methodology, we a new index named “Ability to attract intellectual capital” was generated. EU member states’ performance was compared along this indicator for the 2007-2008 (pre-crisis) and the 2013-2014 (post-crisis) periods. In this way, EU member states can be ranked before and after the crisis; their performance can be compared in the two periods, relatively to each other, and in relation to their performance along other relevant indices.Findings– The findings show interesting results. First, many peripheral EU member states, deeply affected by the crisis, could considerably improve their relative positions between 2007 and 2013. Second, the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) countries show a rather mixed picture, drawing up rather different individual development paths. Third, the advancements in some countries do not imply that overall convergence is proceeding in the EU. Nevertheless, some countries have not wasted the “good” crisis to take those steps of structural reform.Research limitations/implications– Because we only look at two time periods (pre-and post-crisis), the authors are not able to describe the processes that were going on in the EU member states during the years of the crisis; the results can only show the difference between the two periods. Furthermore, there may be other methodological approaches to countries’ abilities to attract intellectual capital that may bring results different from this study’s results. For the countries who, according to our investigations, could improve these abilities, enhanced competitiveness is likely to occur in a few years’ time.Practical implications– For those countries aiming at improving their abilities to attract intellectual capital, or for EU policy design, this research may provide useful results. Moreover, not only this study’s results but also the methodology can be used by others, for other purposes: to compare different years, different sets of countries included in the WEF GCI or even along different dimensions.Social implications– This study’s research findings, the authors believe, will help EU member states and the EU as a whole in getting to know their abilities to attract intellectual capital better. In the introductory part of this paper, the aim was also to collect arguments from the economic theory to explain why such abilities are crucial for future competitiveness of countries.Originality/value– The methodology that was used is the adoption of WEF methodology, and the data are from the WEF GCI dataset. However, to the authors’s knowledge, no other research work has applied this methodology on this set of WEF GCI sub-indicators, with such purposes as to compare EU member states’ abilities to attract intellectual capital before and after the crisis.

The energy transition has now been recognised by European Union (EU) member states as a necessary condition for their long-term development. The process of energy transformation is predicated on the simultaneous implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, which present a considerable challenge for modern economies and impose significant restrictions on their functioning. The objective of this article is to evaluate the transformation of EU member states in the field of sustainable energy development and to categorise them based on their alignment with Sustainable Development Goal No. 7 of the United Nations Agenda 2030, concerning affordable and clean energy, in 2015 and 2023. The monitoring of the progress of the energy transition, as well as the examination of its temporal trends and spatial characteristics, can provide a fundamental analysis framework for the strategic development of energy policy in the EU at national and regional levels. An important approach for this endeavour is the indicator-based assessment of trends. The correspondence analysis proposed in this study and the hierarchical classification, which was intended to help link categories in a two-dimensional space, have the potential to facilitate a more comprehensive assessment of the degree to which EU member states are developing sustainable energy. The study results confirmed significant heterogeneity among the EU-27 countries in terms of energy sustainability. In both 2015 and 2023, the groups of EU countries that achieved a certain level of energy sustainability were identified. However, it should be noted that the composition of each group changed in 2023 compared to 2015. Moreover, no group of EU countries was without its own particular strengths and weaknesses. The results provide opportunities for their interpretation, both in terms of analysing changes in individual indicators and in terms of the global assessment of sustainable development in individual countries. The adoption of an original research approach, divergent from previous studies, for the new timeframe contributes to the resolution of the research gap in empirical studies concerning the classification of EU member states in terms of SDG7 implementation.

Changes in the European Union households' consumption structure and the sustainable development

PURPOSE: The aim of the article is to identify the factors influencing entrepreneurial activity in the European Union (EU) countries. In addition, to achieve the research goal, the authors provide answers to two research questions: (RQ1) What sets and types of variables influence entrepreneurial activity in the EU Member States? and (RQ2) Based on the defined factors influencing entrepreneurial activity, is there a difference between the old and new EU Member States? METHODOLOGY: Using panel regression analysis on the data from the 2009-2018 period, the article attempts to identify factors influencing entrepreneurial activity among EU countries. Furthermore, an examination of possible differences in entrepreneurial activity between the old and new EU Member States is conducted. By using variables that statistically significantly explain entrepreneurial activity, a heatmap was created. This made it possible to visualise differences between countries within each variable, as well as the impact of each variable on the analysed group of old and new EU Member States. FINDINGS: Our research indicates that entrepreneurial activity is higher in new EU Member States than in older ones, influenced by factors categorized into Human Capital and Institutional Conditions. Regarding Human Capital, higher entrepreneurial activity is associated with lower employment in the high-tech sector, higher HDI, greater participation in non-formal education, and a larger share of periodically employed individuals. Conversely, lower entrepreneurial activity correlates with a higher proportion of young people not in employment, education, or training and emigration. Notably, advanced digital skills impact on entrepreneurial activity, but their absence does not constitute a barrier to business creation. Among the Institutional variables, higher entrepreneurial activity is linked to tax burden, EU membership duration, and eurozone membership length. However, the Business Freedom indicator does not significantly affect entrepreneurial activity. IMPLICATIONS: Considering the EU’s strategy and the importance of entrepreneurial activity across EU Member States, policy implications emphasize the need for tailored policies that support business activity, aiming to minimize inter-country differences and boost economic growth. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: Unlike prior studies that mainly compare entrepreneurship between broad economic regions, our research uniquely distinguishes between new and old EU Member States, revealing significant disparities in entrepreneurial activity and its determinants.

The Continuous Importance of the Swiss Case for Europeanization Research

Most European Union (EU) Member States participate in the common visa regime, even though there is no common visa policy applicable to all of them. The visa policy explored here covers the Schengen Area (including EU Member States and other countries, as well as EU countries that are still outside the Schengen). The Schengen Area does not include two EU Member States—the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland—that have opted out from the EU’s visa policies and operate a common travel area between them. Furthermore, the common visa policy in the EU is related to the issuance of short-term visas, while visas of longer duration and residence permits remain in the national domain. Against this background, the visa policy of the EU has four relevant aspects. First, the gradual evolution of the Schengen Area has been driven not only by political developments within the EU and its Member States, but also by broader global developments (e.g., the fall of communism). Second, the consolidation of the internal and external aspects of the visa policy in the EU took place through the growth of the Schengen acquis. Third, visa liberalization has become one of the most powerful tools for policy diffusion beyond the EU’s borders. Finally, securitization of migration has had a strong impact on the EU’s visa policy, particularly in the domains of information exchange and police cooperation.

Purpose. The study aims to assess the European experience of funding for sustainable development of rural communities and the possibility of its implementation in Ukraine. Methodology / approach. The research was carried out using the following methods: bibliometric, trend, cluster – to assess the scientific productivity of research, identify key trends in scientific approaches to the issues under study; comparative, systemic, institutional and functional analysis – to determine the functional links between different elements of the European Union (EU) funding system, as well as correlation and regression analysis – to establish the degree of interconnection between different sources of funding for rural communities in the EU member states. Results. The authors conducted a cluster analysis and built a bibliometric map of the distribution of publications by country for the search query “sustainable development” and “sustainable rural development funding” in the Scopus database between countries for the period 2000–2024. This allowed to form a clear scientific picture of the development of the studied issues, as well as to establish the relevance, complexity and interdisciplinarity of approaches to solving the outlined tasks. It has been proved that the common budget is an instrument for implementing policies and programmes that promote economic growth, social cohesion, and stability in the EU, helping member states solve problems and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. It is emphasised that the EU budgetary policy affects the eligibility conditions and criteria for the allocation of funds and thus reflects the EU’s political priorities, among which sustainable development of rural areas and communities is among the key ones. The composition and structure of financial instruments used for the sustainable development of rural communities in the EU under the Cohesion Policy were clarified. The main funding instruments for rural communities in EU member states, including loans, grants, capital or quasi-capital, and guarantees, are highlighted. It is emphasised that using the EU’s experience in funding sustainable development of rural communities, Ukraine can successfully continue its path to European integration, implementing the necessary reforms and using European resources to modernise and develop both communities and the economy as a whole. Originality / scientific novelty. The study provides a deeper understanding of the funding mechanisms and their impact on the regional development of member states. An empirical study of the integration of various financial instruments, such as grants, loans, capital and quasi-capital, and guarantees, allows identifying new dependencies that have not been previously taken into account in research. The results contribute to scientific knowledge, deepening the understanding of the mechanisms of financial support for the sustainable development of rural communities. Practical value / implications. The results of the study can be used by local governments in developing strategies for the socio-economic development of rural communities, particularly, the European experience of attracting and using financial resources can contribute to the achievement of economic, environmental and social parameters of sustainable development.

This study examines the strength of the consensus on the expected prices across the European Union (EU) countries with respect to various factors: seniority in the EU (‘old’ vs. ‘new’ EU Member States, i.e. those that joined the community in 2004), the size of the economy (small vs. large) and currency cohesion (eurozone vs. local-currency countries). The results show that the lowest consensus on expected prices and relatively little variation in such a consensus occur in the ‘old’ EU countries. Opinions on the direction of the expected price changes vary substantially, but this variation remains stable in time. For almost every EU country, the consensus on the expected prices is higher in the ‘regular times’ subsample than in the ‘pandemic and war’ subsample, and for many countries, the differences in the strength of the consensus are larger for the ‘pandemic and war’ subsample. As far as the correlation with the observed price changes is concerned, the highest correlation coefficients are noted for small economies. Analysing correlation coefficients across subsamples shows that during difficult times of the pandemic and war, seniority in the EU helps the respondents to predict the direction of the expected price changes more in line with the actual price developments.

Research background: Sustainable development of the modern world represents an opportunity to preserve economic growth and technological progress, as well as social development, without limiting the possibilities of this development for past generations. The directions of this development are included in the 17 goals and 169 tasks of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The achievement of these goals and the implementation of the adopted tasks is a huge challenge for individual countries and regions. This also applies to the European Union (EU), where economic development is closely linked to environmental protection and social inclusion. Of key importance in this context is Objective 9 of Agenda 2030, and thus its level of implementation in the EU-27 countries is the aim of the research presented in this paper. Purpose of the article: The research involved assessing the level of EU countries in terms of building stable infrastructure, promoting sustainable industrialization and fostering innovation, i.e., the main areas of Goal 9 of Agenda 2030. Methods: The assessment was based on the EU?27 countries' sustainable development index (SDG9) determined with the use of 14 indicators characterizing these areas between 2015?2020. The basis of the developed methodology was a multi criteria decision making approach (MCDM methods). TOPSIS, WASPAS and EDAS methods were used to determine the sustainability index, and the Entropy, CRITIC and standard deviation (SD) methods were used to determine weights for the adopted indicators. In addition, the use of the Spearman's and Kendall's Tau non-parametric tests enabled the analysis of the relationship between the SDG9 index and the basic economic, environmental and energy parameters, as well as the digitalization of the countries under study. Findings & value added: The results show that the EU?27 countries vary widely in terms of implementing Sustainable Development Goal 9 of Agenda 2030 over the analyzed period. Now, the most advanced in this respect are Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland, and Sweden. By contrast, substantial problems are found in Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, and Lithuania. The results also provide an opportunity to trace changes in the value of the designated index in individual countries, and in groups of countries of the "old" and "new" EU. These results significantly enrich the knowledge of the effectiveness of implementing Goal 9 of Agenda 2030 in the EU?27 countries and the relationship between the development of individual countries and sustainable development economy. These findings can also be used to create new EU?27 strategies for sustainable and solidarity-based development of the whole EU. In addition, the results can be helpful to decision-makers as they highlight important indicators related to innovation, industrialization and infrastructure that should be considered when formulating a country's sustainable development strategy. The added value of the study is the research procedure presented, which can be used in analyses on the study of various issues related to sustainable development for other groups of regions.

This paper aims at investigating some of the critical issues highlighted by the sovereign debt crisis in European Union (EU) Member States (MS). The goal is twofold: 1) Quantify the increase in the risks of the EU banking systems due to haircuts of sovereign debts of some EU Member States, which have been particularly touched by the sovereign crisis; 2) evaluate and compare the policy options which have been adopted to address the issue. The first goal is achieved by estimating the increase in the banks Probability to Default (PD), due to the haircuts in sovereingn debts, through a further development of the SYMBOL model to estimate the PDs by numerical inversion of the Basel FIRB formula for minimum capital requirements. For the second objective the measures within the Basel III Accord, which among the others increases the quality and quantity of capital that banks should set aside to cover from unexpected losses, are compared with the agreement on bank recapitalisation and funding reached by the European Council in October 2011, which responded to the urgent consequences of the sovereign bonds crisis in the EU. The analysis is performed on the 65 large EU banking groups identified by the European Banking Authority (EBA) for the capitalisation exercise.. Results show that the haircuts on sovereign debts of EU MS in crisis would heavily worsen the stability of their banking systems but could also sometimes affect financial stability of other EU countries. We also show that the creation of a temporary capital buffer in the form of a capital target, necessitated by the exceptional circumstances prevailing in some EU MS, represent a step forward to Basel III rules