International topics Economics June 3, 2004 Current Issues Infrastructure as basis for sustainable regional development Editor Hans-Joachim Frank +49 69 910-31879 hans-joachim.frank@db.com Technical Assistant Martina Ebling +49 69 910-31710 martina.ebling@db.com Deutsche Bank Research Frankfurt am Main Germany Internet: www.dbresearch.com E-mail: marketing.dbr@db.com Fax: +49 69 910-31877 Managing Director Norbert Walter The EU s infrastructure shortcomings took on a new dimension with the latest enlargement round. The new EU members have to narrow the distance to the old members in order to improve the competitiveness of their companies and the living conditions of the populace. At the same time, the persistent weakness of economic growth in the large, established countries of Western Europe has substantially increased the need for the old EU members to act and not only because the traffic between east and west is expanding. Without the creation of good basic infrastructure in the new member countries in sectors such as electricity, gas, water, telecommunications, postal service, local public transport and waste disposal, the vision of a modern Europe with favourable living conditions in all regions will remain a pipe dream. The transition indicator system of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development shows that among the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) ranked by their average rating for all the infrastructure sectors covered only Hungary has already attained the Western European level. Slovakia brings up the rear. Since the end of the 1990s not only Hungary but also the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia have narrowed the gap to the old EU. By contrast, Estonia, Poland and Slovakia have lost ground. Noticeable differences are visible in the five sectors of infrastructure analysed. For instance, in telecommunications, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Poland have already nearly reached the EU level. By contrast, no CEEC has a road network to match those in Western Europe. Surprisingly, Bulgaria and Romania, the two countries which are likely to join the EU in 2007, already have transition scores in infrastructure which are roughly in line with the average of the new EU countries. If the CEECs are to attain the same standard of infrastructure as the old EU they will have to invest a total of about EUR 500 bn. The sectors requiring the most investment are water/waste water and electric power. The CEECs could upgrade their road and railway networks to match the old EU average with relatively little investment. Investment in infrastructure as the basis for the sustainable development of the old and new regions of the EU does not hinge simply on higher public spending. What is also needed is a long-term regulatory policy oriented to market economics and coordinated across Europe. This would not only save a considerable amount of public funds, but also accelerate the pace of the necessary private investment. The vision of a modern Europe with favourable living conditions in all regions could then turn into reality much earlier than expected. Author: Josef Auer, +49 69 910-31878 (josef.auer@db.com)
June 3, 2004 Current Issues Infrastructure to play a key role The infrastructure in most countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEECs) still fall far short of the level in Western Europe. Nevertheless, signs of progress are evident. In the countries and regions still lagging, the upgrading of infrastructure will play a key role in shoring up the sustainability of economic and social development. In fact, efficient infrastructure is a sine qua non for exchanges of tangible and intangible goods and services, for public mobility and communication. Without the creation of good basic infrastructure in sectors such as electricity, gas, water, telecommunications, postal service, local public transport and waste disposal, the vision of a modern Europe with favourable living conditions in all regions will remain a pipe dream. Enlargement exacerbates EU s infrastructure problems The infrastructure shortcomings in the old EU took on a new dimension with the latest enlargement round. The new EU members have to narrow the distance to the old members in order to improve the competitiveness of their companies and the living conditions of the populace. At the same time, the persistent weakness of economic growth in the large, established countries of Western Europe has substantially increased the need for the old EU members to act and not only because the traffic between east and west is expanding. The elimination of existing shortcomings can activate currently dormant growth potentials 1 in east and west. Infrastructure problems curb growth If there were any need to prove the existence of shortcomings in the world s infrastructure, events last year in the international electricity markets would serve the purpose. Back then, major blackouts struck entire regions first on August 14 in North America, and then on September 28 in several Western European countries, starting with Italy. This resulted in extensive production shutdowns in many branches of industry and constraints on the quality of life. It all goes to show that the lack of a stable power supply and hence functioning infrastructure will jeopardise economic growth even in prospering regions such as North America and Europe. The recent big blackouts are a good illustration of the fact that efficient infrastructure is essential for the sustained economic development of countries, regions and large economic areas such as the EU. Even though efforts have been taken over the past few years to improve the state of infrastructure in Europe, substantial reforms are still needed in most fields. In fact, so far none of the major areas of infrastructure has reached the level of integration compatible with a single market; this even holds true for successful sectors such as air services, telecommunications and the power industry. 2 Vision of a modern Europe is predicated on efficient infrastructure Substantial need for action A lack of functioning infrastructure jeopardises economic growth 1 2 For more on the theory and empirical evidence of the positive externalities of infrastructure see Dodonov, Boris, Pavlo Sugolov and Christian von Hirschhausen (2002): Infrastructure Policies and Economic Development in East European Transition Countries: First Evidence. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of ISNIE, September 27-29, MIT, Cambridge, MA (USA); Eisenkopf, Alexander (2002): Effiziente Straßenbenutzungsabgaben. Theoretische Grundlagen und konzeptionelle Vorschläge für ein Infrastrukturabgabensystem, Hamburg, pp. 192-221; Heng, Stefan (2000): Ökonomische Betrachtungen zum Straßenverkehr, Mannheim, pp. 68-72. See Auer, Josef et al. (2003): Traditional monopolies: growth through stronger competition, in: Deutsche Bank Research, Frankfurt Voice, May 7, 2003, pp. 7-26. Economics 3
Current Issues June 3, 2004 From services of general interest to market opening The infrastructure markets of Central and Eastern Europe have been slower to open than those of Western Europe, and even in the Western countries it was slow going until the past decade. In most of the old EU states the traditional areas of infrastructure such as electricity, gas and water remained closed to competition until well into the 1990s. The function of the state as provider of so-called services of general interest 3 was said to be the reason. In many quarters the European Commission s strategy to open the markets was viewed at least in the first few years as an attack on the subsidiarity principle and on the freedom of the member countries to design their own policies. Today, though, the practical experience with the liberalisation and privatisation of the telecommunications and electricity markets and in the aviation sector is clearly positive. Empirical studies show that the private sector can usually provide services of general interest in these infrastructural areas with greater product variety, higher quality and better prices. 4 No natural monopolies in infrastructure sectors Furthermore, the contention that key infrastructure sectors are natural monopolies is meanwhile considered to have been proved wrong thanks not least to counter-evidence from actual cases of deregulation. Exceptional treatment based on putative market failures can thus no longer be maintained. There is still scope for liberalisation in the EU in almost all fields of infrastructure. Nevertheless, the competition in the markets liberalised to date has already produced many encouraging results. For example, typical weak points in the sectors of infrastructure formerly owned by the state have been reduced or eliminated. These include untapped potential for rationalisation, suboptimal company sizes, politically motivated use of supply and waste-disposal operations, and excessively high prices (monopoly rents). However, progress in modernising the infrastructure sectors cannot be taken for granted, let alone guaranteed on a permanent basis. The German electricity market is a case in point: the newly sparked competition fizzled out within a few years owing to a lack of (marketoriented) regulation; the concentration on the supply side led in spite of the fact that in law the market is still 100% open to the emergence of a de facto duopoly. 5 In the initial phase the price of electricity trended down, but ultimately it reversed. For that reason, the German government decided last year to appoint from July 2004 a watchdog to exercise ex ante regulation of Germany s grid-based electricity and gas markets in order to comply with the EU directives. This example clearly demonstrates that even a market-oriented revamp of infrastructure services needs permanent monitoring and if developments seem to be headed the wrong way an appropriate revision or modification of the regulatory framework. Infrastructure (average) 1998/99 2003 BG 2.7 3.3 CZ 2.6 3.0 EE 3.3 2.7 HU 3.8 4.3 LT 2.6 3.3 LV 2.9 3.3 PL 3.2 2.7 RO 3.1 3.0 SI 2.6 3.0 SK 2.1 1.7 Average 2.9 3.0 Water/Waste water 1999 2003 BG 2.0 3.0 CZ 4.0 4.0 EE 4.0 4.0 HU 4.0 4.0 LT 3.0 2.7 LV 3.0 2.7 PL 4.0 2.7 RO 3.0 3.0 SI 4.0 4.0 SK 2.7 1.7 Average 3.4 3.2 3 4 5 See Böttcher, Barbara (2003): Services of general interest an alibi for state economic activity?, in Deutsche Bank Research, EU Monitor No. 6, November 2003, pp. 3-17. Granted, some market successes are masked by new types of political special burden, as demonstrated by the example of the German electricity market. See e.g. Auer, Josef (2002): Electricity market in Germany: political charges boosting price, Deutsche Bank Research, Frankfurt Voice, April 4, 2002. See Monopolkommission, "Netzwettbewerb durch Regulierung", 14. Hauptgutachten, July 2002. 4 Economics
June 3, 2004 Current Issues Structural breaks flank CEEC catch-up process At the beginning of May 2004 a group of eight countries from Central and Eastern Europe the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia plus Cyprus and Malta acceded to the EU. Bulgaria and Romania are likely to join in 2007. In Cyprus and Malta, infrastructural issues play a comparatively minor role since those countries generally already have much more efficient systems. Besides, since they are islands extensive infrastructure networks (e.g. highways) are not very significant. The CEECs have been racing for years to catch up to the level of infrastructure found in the old EU. From a strictly quantitative point of view most of the transition countries are already admirably equipped in several areas. The actual weakness is the poor quality of the infrastructure available. One major reason has been that in many areas e.g. road networks there was a lack of maintenance investment despite relatively heavy use even before the political transition. The catch-up process in Central and Eastern Europe was flanked in the initial phase by various structural breaks in the large sectors. For example, the rising demand for information and communication by private consumers and companies delivered strong stimuli for the rapid development and expansion of such infrastructure. By contrast, the in some cases drastic slump in industrial production resulted in a strong decline in the transport of goods (especially by rail). The rising mobility demands of private individuals revealed that an efficient road system was missing. Moreover, with the disappearance of some demand from heavy industry and the still large potential for energy savings in nearly all sectors, there proved to be overcapacities in power generation. In future, the demand for energy will pick up in line with economic growth. But it will probably take years to run down the excess capacities fully. The process will be accelerated though by the increasing importance of environmental standards, targets which were once largely disregarded. This is causing more and more outdated generating capacity to disappear from the market and/or to be replaced by modern, more efficient and better-dimensioned facilities. Status quo and modernisation of the infrastructure in the CEECs Since the end of the 1990s the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has used a sophisticated indicator system to determine and assess the status quo and pace of modernisation in the key infrastructure sectors in the different transition countries. Major assessment criteria include the path of reform to adjust tariffs, to commercialise, to deregulate markets and to open them to the private sector. The progress made in each sector is rated every year, with the scores ranging from 1 (no reform) to 4.3 (EU level). When comparing the results of the different years it must of course be borne in mind that the EU level is also changing over time e.g. as a result of liberalisation initiatives such as the opening of the electricity markets. However, annual comparisons can show whether the individual countries have been able to narrow their relative gap to the benchmark EU level. This in turn helps in drawing conclusions about the intensity of the catch-up process in the different countries. The tables in the margin set the EBRD readings for either 1998 or 1999 against those for 2003. It emerges that in this period the progress of the ten CEECs has differed quite noticeably in the Roads 1999 2003 BG 2.3 1.7 CZ 3.0 1.7 EE 3.3 1.7 HU 3.3 2.7 LT 2.3 1.7 LV 2.3 1.7 PL 3.3 3.0 RO 2.3 3.0 SI 3.0 3.0 SK 2.3 1.7 Average 2.7 2.2 Railways 1998 2003 BG 3.0 3.0 CZ 3.3 3.0 EE 4.0 3.7 HU 3.3 2.7 LT 2.3 1.7 LV 3.3 2.7 PL 3.3 4.0 RO 4.0 4.0 SI 3.3 3.0 SK 2.0 1.7 Average 3.2 3.0 Electric power 1998 2003 BG 2.0 2.7 CZ 2.3 2.7 EE 2.0 3.0 HU 4.0 4.0 LT 2.3 3.0 LV 2.3 3.0 PL 3.0 3.0 RO 2.3 3.0 SI 2.3 3.0 SK 2.0 4.0 Average 2.5 3.1 Economics 5
Current Issues June 3, 2004 degree to which they have converged with the average of the old EU. For instance, the indicator system shows that of the ten countries going by their average for all five infrastructure sectors (see upper table on p. 4) only Hungary attained the Western European level (4.3) in 2003. Slovakia brings up the rear with an average of 1.7. During the period under review (1998/99 to 2003), Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia narrowed their respective gaps to the EU while Hungary, as already discussed, closed the gap completely. By contrast, the gaps in Estonia, Poland and Slovakia actually widened. However, it would not be right to draw the (overly simplistic) conclusion that these countries rescinded earlier reforms. Rather, the pace of modernisation was higher on average in the (old) EU. Noticeable differences are visible in the five sectors of infrastructure analysed. For instance, in telecommunications, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Poland have already nearly reached the EU level. By contrast, no CEEC has road infrastructure to match the level common in Western Europe. On balance, the evaluation based on the indicator system points to a still considerable need for modernisation despite all the progress the CEECs have made so far. It must not be overlooked either that the reference value (4.3) in no way marks the optimum target, since many infrastructure reforms are still outstanding also in the old EU countries. Candidates for 2007 enlargement already near CEEC average Bulgaria and Romania, which are likely to join the EU in 2007, already rank near the CEEC average (3) for the five infrastructure sectors analysed, posting readings of 3.3 and 3 respectively. In Bulgaria, the gap to the EU level is greatest in the roads sector (at a score of only 1.7), while the other sectors already show a reading of 3. Romania in fact topped the scorecard among the CEECs in 2003 in terms of railway infrastructure (together with Poland) and road infrastructure (with Slovenia and Poland). Romania has the lowest energy consumption per inhabitant of all the CEECs at 2.3 tonnes of coal equivalent, while Bulgaria ranks in midfield. Given the race in the CEECs to catch up economically the trend will be toward higher per capita energy consumption, while the average of the EU-15 lies at around 5.6 t. All this highlights the fact that the standard of infrastructure in Bulgaria and Romania assuming reform efforts continue should be no obstacle to future EU accession. Enormous need to invest in infrastructure in CEECs From the early 1990s to the end of 2001, the three big development banks (European Investment Bank, World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) raised over EUR 21 bn for investment in infrastructure in the ten CEECs that are now part of the EU or poised to join in a few years, with the focus on transport, energy, telecommunications and the environment. The European Commission estimates that each euro of this amount induced investment of as much as another 6 euros by national governments and/or private companies, suggesting that so far infrastructure investment has totalled roughly EUR 100 bn. Despite the resultant improvements so far, studies conducted by the Berlin-based DIW economic research institute show that the CEECs need to invest much higher amounts if they are to achieve the level Telecommunications 1998 2003 BG 3.0 3.0 CZ 2.3 4.0 EE 4.0 4.0 HU 4.0 4.0 LT 3.3 2.7 LV 3.0 3.0 PL 3.3 4.0 RO 3.0 3.0 SI 2.3 3.0 SK 2.3 1.7 Average 3.1 3.2 CEEC energy consumption, 2001 Coal equivalent per inhabitant RO LV LT PL BG HU EE SK SI CZ EU-15 Sources: OECD, iwd 2.3 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.6 4.7 4.9 4.9 5.7 5.6 0 2 4 6 Infrastructure investment in Central and Eastern Europe by sector 1991 until 2001 Water 5% Energy 18% Environment/other 15% Telecommunications 14% Sources: EIB, ERBD, Weltbank, DIW Transport 48% t 6 Economics
June 3, 2004 Current Issues of infrastructure found in the old EU. 6 This indicates total investment requirements of around EUR 500 bn, corresponding to about 5% of the CEECs GDP over the next 15 years. The sectors requiring the most investment are water/waste water and energy. The modernisation of the environmental and telecommunications sectors is likely to require moderate investment, while the road and railway infrastructure could be upgraded to match the average level of the old EU with relatively little investment. Tight fiscal budgets afford opportunities for private investors Owing to the persistent scarcity of funds in the EU budget and in member countries budgets, the activation of private-sector capital will play a major role in the financing of infrastructure projects. Full privatisation is only one conceivable way to ease the pressure on the public purse. There is a broad spectrum of innovative financing models which allow the participation of private investors. These include the formation of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and operator models. 7 For instance, it would generally be desirable in the transport sector to switch from purely budget-financed to userfinanced road infrastructure. The basis for the success of such models is likely to improve in Central and Eastern Europe thanks to a prospective rise in traffic there that will go hand in hand with economic expansion. For institutional investors (such as life insurance companies and pension funds) these infrastructure projects can be quite lucrative, as they usually offer a favourable return on capital employed along with a comparatively low level of volatility in returns and only low vulnerability to business cycles. Attempt to cut infrastructure shortcomings by 2010 The modernisation of the infrastructure networks in Europe remains one of the most pressing goals of the future. Even in the old EU, no infrastructure sector has yet reached the top stage of integration: the completion of the single market. The latest enlargement round has accentuated the problems. But moves to cut the infrastructure shortcomings now curbing development could help tap currently dormant growth potentials and thus achieve many positive expansionary and welfare effects in east and west. To date, however, there has been no comprehensive, sector-overarching strategy to create a single market in the network industries. The existing road maps to liberalise the markets in individual sectors of infrastructure do not, on balance, go far enough. The EU must not be held responsible for the sluggishness in opening the markets and modernising the infrastructure sectors. The blame has to be laid squarely on the member countries, which have often been very slow to transpose the EU directives into national legislation. All the same, precise targets for timing and content as part of a cross-sector, systematic approach could ensure more rationality and momentum in the liberalisation process. Therefore, in the light of the greater challenges triggered by EU enlargement, it is above all up to the Council of Ministers and the Commission to devise and implement a sustainable overall strategy for the liberalisation, modernisation and necessary expansion of the CEEC investment requirements* for tangible infrastructure Sector Investment requirements EUR bn Still no comprehensive, sectoroverarching strategy Target: internal market for all network industries % of annual GDP (15 years) Roads 44 0.5 Railways** 37 0.4 Telecommunications Water/ Waste water 63 180 Energy 110 1.3 Environment 71 0.8 Total approx. 515 5-6% *) Assuming average EU level is reached **) Additional (other) means of transport: EUR 10 bn Sources: European Commission; G7; EBRD, DIW, Berlin 2002/2003 0.7 2.0 6 7 See Hirschhausen, Christian von (2002): Infrastrukturentwicklung in den mittel- und osteuropäischen EU-Beitrittsländern: Auf dem Weg nach Europa, DIW-Wochenbericht 37/02; Hirschhausen, Christian von (2003): Modernisierung der Infrastruktur in den EU-Beitrittsländern, Gedenkkolloquium Hans-Jürgen Ewers, Berlin, May 16, 2003. See Fislage, Bernd and Eric Heymann (2003): Road operation models, Deutsche Bank Research, Frankfurt Voice, June 10, 2003. Economics 7
Current Issues June 3, 2004 infrastructure markets. In our opinion, the target stated in the Lisbon process should be the guideline. The Lisbon objective to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010 should be the yardstick for all the key political decisions to be taken in the coming years. This calls for the creation of an internal market for all network industries by 2010, and for an integrative approach when addressing the related contractual, institutional and competitive issues. So far, the authorities have failed to submit solutions that are conceptually satisfying for all the sectors of infrastructure. 8 Liberalisation is no curb on investment to modernise the infrastructure As discussed, enormous capital injections will be needed to modernise Europe s infrastructure networks as required. Because numerous inefficiencies in infrastructure emerged after the liberalisation and privatisation strategies of the 1990s (e.g. the blackouts in the power sector and the failures in the railway sector in the UK), criticism of these modernisation strategies has burgeoned. Some people have claimed that as a result of the deregulation investment activity is coming to a standstill, the infrastructure is gradually becoming outdated and the breakdown of services is a logical consequence. A DIW analysis finds no causal link from a scientific standpoint, though. 9 On the one hand, planning certainty does decrease with the deregulation of markets, which tends to curb corporate investment activity. On the other hand, though, especially the newly sparked competition raises the companies propensity to invest. The entry of newcomers in the market often goes hand in hand with an innovative thrust. The competition in once protected markets frequently induces additional investment in rationalisation, modernisation and expansion. In fact, intensive debate among experts and empirical studies increasingly document that the partial slowing of investment activity in Europe in key infrastructure sectors is by no means the logical consequence of liberalisation and competition. Rather, what is crucial for the long-term financing of infrastructure is marketoriented, efficient regulation and supervision by a competition watchdog or the government. Market-oriented regulation points the way for CEECs Market-oriented regulation will play a leading role especially in the transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe, as their infrastructure is less than optimal in terms of quantity and quality. In this context, the authorities will have to perform a delicate balancing act, i.e. they will have to push for institutional reforms such as company privatisations and the opening of markets to competition and new players, but they will also have to establish a stable regulatory framework. Such regulation should provide attractive, sufficiently dependable incentives for potential investors, while guarding against excessive prices vis-à-vis demand structures that are often polypolistic. Market-oriented regulation should forbid the Unwarranted criticism of liberalisation Competition induces investment A delicate balancing act is required 8 9 See Böttcher, Barbara, Klaus Deutsch and Elke Thiel (2003): Growth and prosperity in Europe an agenda, EU Monitor No. 8, Deutsche Bank Research, Frankfurt/M., pp. 16-18. See Hirschhausen, Christian von, Andreas Kappeler and Anne Neumann (2003): Infrastrukturausbau in Europa - Mehr Investitionen und höhere Effizienz durch bessere Regulierung?, Ergebnisse einer internationalen Konferenz des DIW Berlin, DIW- Wochenbericht 49/03. 8 Economics
June 3, 2004 Current Issues forms of cross-subsidisation that are still commonly found in many CEECs. This holds, for example, in the energy sector for the indirect subsidisation of household customers through an artificially cheap supply of electricity and gas. Decisions taken in the implementation phase will be crucial for the degree of success in modernising the infrastructure sectors. The better, and earlier, the regulatory framework reflects the broad interplay of relevant factors such as prices, costs, volumes and quality, the sooner and more sustainable the success of the strategy will be. By contrast, mistakes in the starting phase are often relatively difficult to correct after the fact, for every reform must be pushed through against typical reluctance to accept change and gradually growing resistance from the market participants benefiting from the inefficiencies. But up to now experience with modernisation has been encouraging especially in the CEECs. In infrastructure sectors such as telecommunications and transport the improvements in performance have been noticeable. Efficient regulation a better route than public funding The standard of the infrastructure is without doubt the crucial basis for sustainable regional development in Europe. However, views continue to differ widely on how to go about finding the right method to modernise the individual sectors. According to the DIW, experience gained in the European infrastructure programmes of recent years shows that to lure investment the right kind of regulatory environment is more important than the absolute level of funds made available by the public sector. 10 Therefore, the DIW deserves support in its criticism of the proposal on trans-european infrastructure programmes (the so-called "van Miert" or "Tremonti" plan) put forward by the European Commission. The programme provides for quasi-government loans to promote projects that have been accorded priority, and no less than 10 to 30% of the costs of EUR 600 bn may be carried directly by the EU. The experience with the predecessor programme from 1994 (Trans-European Networks, TEN) is sobering enough: up to now only 3 of the 14 TEN projects have been realised, because the financing of the flagship projects has usually been much more difficult than originally estimated. In comparison, though, it emerges that the lack of long-term, reliable, market-oriented regulation is probably an even greater obstacle to investment in the respective sectors. It follows that the right strategy for the modernisation of infrastructure in Europe must not only count on the availability of public funds. On the contrary: an intelligent, market-oriented regulatory process can establish a reliable order which will make it easier to calculate the return on long-term investments and thus provide incentives for private entities beyond public subsidies. Investment in infrastructure as a basis for the sustainable development of the older and newer EU regions does not hinge simply on higher public spending. What is needed most is a longterm regulatory policy oriented to market economics and coordinated across Europe. This would not only save a considerable amount of public funds, but also accelerate the pace of the necessary private investment. The vision of a modern Europe with favourable living conditions in all regions could then turn into reality much earlier than expected. Author: Josef Auer, +49 69 910-31878 (josef.auer@db.com) Starting phase will be crucial for the success of modernisation For investment, right kind of regulatory environment is more important than public funding Market-oriented regulatory policy would have many advantages 10 See Hirschhausen, Christian von et al., ibid. Economics 9
EU Monitor ISSN: 1612-0272 Available faster by e-mail!!! EU Monitor is the series that emerged when EMU Watch and EU Enlargement Monitor were folded into one. EU Financial Market Special now also appears as a subseries under the new label. We publish about 10 issues of EU Monitor per year, with analyses focussing on political, economic and monetary developments in the enlarged EU. The spectrum ranges from political commentaries and reform of the EU institutions to matters pertaining to the European Economic and Monetary Union, financial-market and banking aspects and to the consequences of enlargement for specific sectors and countries. No. 7 Financial Market Special October 2003 The Pfandbrief and other covered bonds in the EU capital market: development and regulation No. 6 Reports on European integration November 2003 Standpoint: honour the stability and growth pact! Services of general interest - an alibi for state economic activity? Sweden gives euro the cold shoulder Pension reforms in the EU The Central and Eastern European accession countries: data overview and commentary No. 5 Financial Market Special October 2003 EU: taxation of savings income coming down the home straight? No. 4 Financial Market Special July 2003 Reform of EU regulatory and supervisory structures: progress report No. 3 Reports on European integration July 2003 Europe s Magna Carta? Tax policy between competition and harmonisation Poland after the EU referendum Eurocivic pride No. 2 Financial Market Special July 2003 EU Takeover Directive - Success after 30 years of discussion?
EU Monitor ISSN: 1612-0272 Available faster by e-mail!!! EU Monitor is the series that emerged when EMU Watch and EU Enlargement Monitor were folded into one. EU Financial Market Special now also appears as a subseries under the new label. We publish about 10 issues of EU Monitor per year, with analyses focussing on political, economic and monetary developments in the enlarged EU. The spectrum ranges from political commentaries and reform of the EU institutions to matters pertaining to the European Economic and Monetary Union, financial-market and banking aspects and to the consequences of enlargement for specific sectors and countries. No. 12 Reports on European integration April 2004 Standpoint: A time for renewed thrust May 1, 2004: What will really change The institutional framework for accession to EMU EMU enlargement: no big bang Stability risks on the road to the euro The economic challenges of EMU enlargement No. 11 Reports on European integration January 2004 Standpoint: The EU needs and deserves our best people! Consolidation in European banking: great progress - except in Germany The steel industry: enlargement creates opportunities for EU mills The situation in the EU accession countries No. 10 Financial Market Special November 2003 US vs. EU banking market: the more integrated, the more profitable? No. 8 Reports on European integration January 2004 Growth and prosperity in Europe - an agenda All our publications can be accessed, free of charge, on our website www.dbresearch.com. You can also register there to receive our publications regularly by e-mail. Ordering address for the print version: Deutsche Bank Research Marketing 60272 Frankfurt am Main Fax: +49 69 910-31877 E-mail: marketing.dbr@db.com 2004. Publisher: Deutsche Bank AG, DB Research, D-60262 Frankfurt am Main, Federal Republic of Germany, editor and publisher, all rights reserved. When quoting please cite Deutsche Bank Research. The information contained in this publication is derived from carefully selected public sources we believe are reasonable. We do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness, and nothing in this report shall be construed to be a representation of such a guarantee. Any opinions expressed reflect the current judgement of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Deutsche Bank AG or any of its subsidiaries and affiliates. The opinions presented are subject to change without notice. Neither Deutsche Bank AG nor its subsidiaries/affiliates accept any responsibility for liabilities arising from use of this document or its contents. Deutsche Banc Alex Brown Inc. has accepted responsibility for the distribution of this report in the United States under applicable requirements. Deutsche Bank AG London being regulated by the Securities and Futures Authority for the content of its investment banking business in the United Kingdom, and being a member of the London Stock Exchange, has, as designated, accepted responsibility for the distribution of this report in the United Kingdom under applicable requirements. Deutsche Bank AG, Sydney branch, has accepted responsibility for the distribution of this report in Australia under applicable requirements. Printed by: Druck- und Verlagshaus Zarbock GmbH & Co. KG ISSN Print: 1612-314X / ISSN Internet and E-mail: 1612-3158