Risultati di ricerca

Lunedì 9 marzo 2015 è stata l’occasione per i soci della Fondazione di incontrare Matteo del Fante, recentemente nominato Amministratore Delegato di Terna. L’incontro “Terna, presente e prospettive future” ha permesso di fare il punto sulle strategie dell’azienda nella distribuzione dell’energia elettrica e sui prossimi investimenti che l’azienda intende realizzare per offrire un servizio efficiente e in maniera sempre più competitiva.

L’ottava edizione della Summer University di European Ideas Network si è tenuta a Vienna dal 15 al 17 ottobre sul tema “The World in 2025: Putting people at the Heart of Europe – The basis for social and economic recovery”. La Summer University rappresenta un tradizionale spazio per politici, accademici e rappresentanti di fondazioni e think tank europei in cui poter discutere sulle principali tematiche che l’Unione Europea è chiamata ad affrontare. Quest’anno, la crisi economica, il suo impatto sociale e le prospettive di ripresa hanno costituito i temi centrali di molti degli incontri e delle tavole rotonde che hanno avuto luogo. Sessioni plenarie e gruppi di lavoro specifici si sono inoltre concentrati su: riforme del welfare e dei servizi pubblici, sviluppo sostenibile (energia e ambiente), digital economy, sicurezza alimentare, confini geografici dell’UE e politiche di vicinato, sicurezza e relazioni transatlantiche. Alla luce delle recenti elezioni europee, è stata dedicata attenzione anche alle questioni di governance istituzionale in vista dell’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona nonché alle prospettive di una “Europa dei valori”. Tra i numerosi ospiti intervenuti: José Manuel Barroso, Presidente della Commissione Europea; Jerzy Buzek, Presidente del Parlamento Europeo; Joseph Daul, Presidente del Gruppo PPE al Parlamento Europeo, Wilfred Martens, presidente del PPE; Franco Frattini, Ministro degli Esteri italiano; Antonio Tajani, Vicepresidente della Commissione Europea, e i Commissari Europei Jan Figel e Viviane Reding.

Il 15 dicembre 2015 Dario Franceschini, Ministro dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo, è intervenuto sul tema: “Cultura e Turismo: motori della Crescita”. L’incontro vuole contribuire a promuovere la valorizzazione e lo sviluppo del patrimonio artistico e culturale italiano quale leva strategica per la Crescita del Paese.

Nel corso del seminario organizzato dal Partito Popolare Europeo e da EIN a Bruxelles, il 7 febbraio, il Commissario europeo Andris Piebalgs ha tenuto un discorso sulla politica energetica. Di seguito la trascrizione: Ladies and gentlemen, The world today is facing a massive energy and environmental challenge, a challenge that is particularly acute for Europe. Let me first consider energy security. According to the IEA, on a business-as-usual scenario, world energy demand is set to increase by more than 50% by 2030. As the IEA states: “the ability and willingness of major oil and gas producers to step up investment in order to meet rising global demand are particularly uncertain….rising oil and gas demand, if unchecked, would accentuate the consuming countries’ vulnerability to a severe supply disruption and resulting price shock”. It is becoming increasingly clear that without real and effective action we will simply end up consuming more, polluting more and emitting more CO2. The potential effects of this on Europe must be cause for concern – our dependence on imported oil and gas is growing. Today we import about 50% of our energy. By 2030, if we do not act, it will be 65%. The potential effects of this on our economy are serious. And this continual increase in energy consumption is not just a threat to the global economy. Climate change is serious and it is happening today. The scientific evidence is unanimous and is overwhelming. On present trends, the world’s output of CO2 – which accounts for 75% of all greenhouse gases, will increase by 55% by 2030. The EU’s emissions are set to increase by 5% during this period. If we let this happen the results on or environment, on our economy, and our way of life will be tremendous; not only for developing countries but also Europe. The evidence is clear: - the ice caps and glaciers are already melting, and this is just the beginning. This is set to accelerate, causing rising sea levels. A 1 meter rise would be serious for Europe, yet alone numerous cities around the world. The consequences in terms of potential refugees is serious; - increases in temperatures will have very serious effects in many areas, on the standard of living, on disease and water availability and on agriculture. And these increases will be higher in some areas than others. The potential effects in Southern Europe and particularly Africa must be of concern to us all. If we allow this to happen, we will leave a legacy to our children and grandchildren. CO2 that we emit today stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Climate change is real, it will affect us all, and it will damage the lives of our children and grandchildren. We have caused it, but now have to prevent it. Acting now is a moral and economic obligation, not an option. Furthermore, the present direction of Europe’s energy policy will fail to contribute to Europe’s competitiveness. The EU today is world leader in many energy technologies, but we are now being out-spent in research in new, low carbon technologies. This is a missed opportunity. Today, the EU does not have a common energy policy fit to deal with these challenges. Once again, without such a vision and a coherent European framework, we will end up using more energy, importing more energy, emitting more CO2 and we run every risk of having fragmented national electricity and gas markets dominated by a single or handful of companies. In many respects, this is surprising, because energy is at the very origins of the creation of the EU. The original Messina Declaration, of 1955 stated that “To these ends, the ministers have agreed on the following objectives: …putting more abundant energy at a cheaper price at the disposal of the European economies…” The first EC Treaties dealt with coal and then nuclear – the key energies of the time. Yet the present EU Treaty has no specific provisions on energy at all similar to those for agriculture, fisheries and transport. The need for a new European Energy Policy is self-evident. These are challenges that no Member State can deal with alone. Indeed, in many respects they are challenges that Europe cannot deal with alone – climate change and exploding energy demand are global problems, requiring a global response. This has been recognised by the EU’s Heads of State and the European Parliament, asking the Commission to put forward exactly such a European Energy Policy, which the Commission has tabled on January 10th. This proposes the most wide-ranging reform of Europe’s energy policy ever attempted, fundamentally changing the direction in which we are heading. The energy package put forward by the Commission contains a core strategic energy objective contained in the Strategic Energy Review and is accompanied by a concrete Action Plan to achieve it, based on 7 main documents: - the Internal Market Review and final conclusions of the Sectoral Competition Enquiry; - the Action Plan on Energy Efficiency; - the Long Term Renewables Road Map and Renewable electricity and Biofuels Reports; - the Communication preparing a Strategic Energy Research Initiative; - the Priority Interconnection Plan; - the Communication on Sustainable Fossil Fuels; - the Illustrative Nuclear Programme. The point of departure is a key objective: we redirect our energy policy to enable the EU to achieve a 20% reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions that it produces by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. This unilateral 20% target needs to be seen in the context of the need for international action on climate change. When such a commitment will exist, the EU will need to do more, with an increased target of 30% reduction by 2030 and 60-80% by 2050. But we cannot do this alone. We need however, in our own interest, to take the steps to achieve the 20% target today. Even without global warming, we should be making such a step: the 20% objective can limit the EU’s growing exposure to increased volatility and prices for oil and gas, bring about a more competitive EU energy market, and stimulate technology and jobs. It is however a huge challenge: in energy specific terms, meeting this overall greenhouse gas target will require the EU to reduce the amount of CO2 from its energy use by at least 20%, and probably more, in 13 short years. It means therefore progressively transforming Europe into a highly energy efficient and low CO2 energy economy. It is means nothing less than a new industrial revolution. The Commission therefore proposes not just a new strategic target to shift the direction of Europe’s energy policy. It has equally tabled a concrete, coherent Action Plan: 7 inter-linked measures that will put us on course to achieve all three underlying objectives – competitiveness, sustainability and security of supply. The first of these concerns the Internal Energy Market. Without an Internal Energy Market that is truly characterised by intense European-wide competition, none of the EU’s core energy objectives will be achieved. Prices will be higher than necessary, the emissions trading mechanism will fail to work properly, and companies will have the ability and incentive to limit investment in new infrastructure, inter-connection capacity and generation, increasing the risk of black-outs and unnecessary price surges. So far, the present rules and measures have not yet achieved our objectives. The lack of progress is leading Member States to impose generalised caps on electricity and gas prices. This situation cannot continue. I consider that a coherent series of measures now need to be taken. The first of these measures concerns unbundling. Without effective separation of networks from competitive activities there is an inherent risk not only of discrimination, but possibly more importantly, of a disincentive on vertically integrated companies from investing adequately in their networks. There are two options that might be considered to redress this: a full Independent System Operator or ownership unbundling. Of this two, I believe that ownership unbundling is clearly the preferable option. Secondly, the Commission proposes an improvement in the effectiveness of energy regulation. Regulators must be given not only the task of promoting the effective development of their national market, but also that of promoting the development of the Internal Energy Market. In addition, despite the creation of the European Regulators’ Group for Electricity and Gas (ERGEG), insufficient progress has been made in harmonising the technical standards necessary for cross-border trade to function. A step change is necessary, and formal decision-making powers should now be given to a new body set up at Community level, with the power to adopt binding decisions on technical issues and mechanisms relating to cross border trade. An alternative possible, but less ambitious approach, would be to significantly strengthen the existing ERGEG. It is worth noting, however, that these changes would not seek to create a “European Regulator”, national regulators would remain individually responsible for the core regulatory tasks such as tariff setting. In addition to these two key measures, new measures are proposed in four areas: - Transparency: new measures setting minimum requirements to be respected by all EU companies, similar to that already adopted for telecommunications; - a new Energy Customers’ Charter with the goals of tackling fuel poverty, improving the level of information available to citizens and protecting customers from unfair selling practices; - Network security: As you can see from the slide behind me, recent failures in network security have to be prevented in the future, they affect us all and are unacceptable. The new Community Transmission System Operators mechanism should also be tasked with proposing common minimum security standards. These would become binding following approval by energy regulators; - Infrastructure: identifying the most significant missing infrastructure and ensuring pan-European political support to make progress. Putting these proposals into practice requires difficult decisions to be taken. But this has to happen if we to are guarantee the development of a European Energy Market that really meets the needs of Europe’s citizens. The Commission will table formal legislative proposals – the third liberalisation package – during 2007. The second key area of the new European Energy Policy concerns solidarity between Member States and security of supply for oil, gas and electricity. The Commission will monitor implementation of the Gas Security Directive recently transposed by Member States and assess its effectiveness and examine ways to strengthen existing crisis solidarity mechanisms. In addition, it will consider how the EU’s contribution to the IEA’s strategic oil stocks mechanism could be improved. The third area for concrete action proposed by the Commission concerns an ambitious programme of energy efficiency measures at Community, national, local and international level. Of all the proposals put forward in the new European Energy Policy, efficiency has the potential to make the most decisive contribution to the EU’s sustainability, competitiveness and security of supply. On 19th October 2006 the Commission adopted the Energy Efficiency Action Plan, to achieve a 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2020. This would mean the EU using approximately 13% less energy in 2020 than today, saving €100 bn and around 780 millions tonnes of CO2 each year. This is truly ambitious, and we should not underestimate the difficulty in achieving it. The challenge will be now to take this forward. In addition, in the coming months the Commission intends to put forward the basis of a new international agreement on energy efficiency. This could bring the OECD and key developing countries (such as China, India and Brazil) together to agree common approaches to saving energy. We should aim at signing such an agreement during the Beijing Olympic Games. The potential energy saving and CO2 reduction is enormous – improved energy efficiency alone could cut around 20% of current global CO2 emissions. I would now like to discuss the fourth concrete area where the Commission proposes concrete action: renewable energy. It is a simple fact that if we do not shift in our energy mix in a major way towards renewable energy over the next 13 years and beyond, we will have no chance whatsoever of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. So a major increase in renewable energy is a precondition for meeting our core energy objective. But we should be doing this even if climate change was not happening. Together with energy efficiency renewable energy is practically the only way that we can limit our increasing dependence on imported hydrocarbons. Sweden has produced very interesting ideas on how to make Sweden an oil free society. To meet these challenges the Commission proposes that a commitment is made to increase the level of renewable energy in the EU’s overall mix to 20% by 2020. Targets beyond 2020 would be assessed later in the light of technological progress. This is tremendously ambitious. Despite agreeing an EU objective of ensuring that 12% of our energy mix is renewable by 2010, we are unlikely to exceed 10%. There has been real progress, particularly in wind and biofuels, but this has been concentrated in a few countries. So the Commission is proposing nothing less than a new industrial revolution in energy policy. It is however also possible, with major increases in wind and the development of a major off-shore European supergrid and more biomass for heating. Biofuels will also need to become a real and every day part of the lives of European citizens. Today I visited a petrol station here in Stockholm with biofuels – we need more! However, to make it a reality, it requires three things. - Firstly, real commitment by Member States, not just promises. This means legally binding targets. - Secondly, we need to get the cost of renewable energy down. This is an opportunity for Europe as much as it is a challenge. The global market for renewable and low carbon energy technologies is expanding. - Thirdly, given the level of ambition of these targets, each Member State should have a legally binding national renewable energy target, but within this, they should be free to determine the precise mix between renewable electricity, biomass for heating and cooling, and biofuels. However, a minimum and common biofuel target of 10% of the fuel mix by 2020 is necessary for all Member States. A new Umbrella Directive will be put forward by the Commission in 2007 to make this a reality. Until this is adopted, the current rules and targets will remain in place. I would now like to return to research, the next key part of the European Energy Policy. It is a regrettable fact that Europe is not the clear leader in research into the next generation of low carbon and renewable technologies. In 2007 the Commission will therefore table a European Strategic Energy Technology Plan. This will set clear objectives and targets for Europe’s energy research and technology, such as developing second generation biofuels and getting large scale offshore wind competitive. These are just examples, in 2007 we shall propose a concrete programme to better coordinate existing resources, to use them in a more targeted and focussed manner and, where necessary, invest more. The European Spring Council of 2008 will need to conclude on this. A related issue concerns the next area where the Commission believes progress needs to be made: moving towards a low CO2 fossil future. The IEA expects twice as much electricity to be produced from coal by 2030. That would release around 5bn tonnes of CO2, representing 40% of the expected increase in global energy-related CO2 emissions. Put quite simply, without clean coal and capture and storage, the most pessimistic scenarios regarding global warming put forward by scientists – an increase of 6°C above current levels – look practically certain to occur. This would be truly disastrous. For Europe as well, without these technologies from 2020 onwards, we will not be able to meet our greenhouse gas emissions objectives. In our own interest therefore, we need to take world leadership in this area. In addition to clean coal and sequestration being key elements of the Strategic Technology Initiative, the EU needs to provide a clear vision for the introduction of CO2 capture and storage, to establish a favourable regulatory framework for its development, and to take international action. Vattenfall is involved in one of the first CO2 capture and storage facilities in Europe. In 2007, therefore, the Commission will start work to design a mechanism to stimulate the construction and operation by 2015 of up to 12 large-scale fossil fuels demonstration plants in the EU. The Commission believes that, in principle, by 2020 all new coal-fired plants will need to be fitted with CO2 capture and storage and existing plants should then progressively follow the same approach. I would now like to turn to the role of nuclear in the European Energy Policy. First, some facts. At present nuclear electricity makes up 30% of EU electricity, 50% in Sweden. It raises important issues regarding waste and decommissioning, but is the largest EU low-carbon energy source today, and also one of the cheapest. It has relatively stable costs, uranium reserves are sufficient for many decades and they are widely distributed around the globe. It is for each Member State to decide whether or not to rely on nuclear electricity. However, in the event that the level of nuclear energy reduces in the EU, it is essential that this reduction is phased in with the introduction of other low-carbon energy; otherwise the objective of cutting Greenhouse gas emissions will be doubly difficult to meet. In short, the EU needs an objective debate on this issue; there are no longer – aside from energy efficiency – any easy energy choices and the challenge we face is enormous. At EU level, the role should be to develop further the most advanced framework for nuclear energy in those Member States that choose nuclear power. This should include nuclear waste management and decommissioning. In order to make progress the Commission proposes to establish an EU High Level Group on Nuclear Safety and Security. Finally, I would like to consider the need for a common External EU Energy Policy. Global warming is a global challenge and improved security of oil and gas supply will only result from real international action. The EU can set the pace on these issues, but it needs to bring other partners onboard. We can only do this if Europe speaks with one voice. Many of the priorities to be pursued in this area have already been identified and discussed by the Heads of State. I would like to highlight which should be our main priorities: - first of all co-operation with our neighbours, starting with the Energy community, and with the Euro-Mediterranean partnership; - then permanent dialogues with our main suppliers: Russia, Norway and Algeria; - OPEC and the countries of the Gulf region; - countries of the Black and Caspian Seas; - main consumers such as US, China and India; - and last, but not least, Africa. As a first step a comprehensive Africa-Europe Energy partnership should be developed, launched through a joint event at the highest level in 2007. In addition, the energy developments that will take place in Europe over the next two decades represent real opportunities for improving the lives of the world’s poorest. The recent oil price rises have effectively cancelled the effect of development aid in some countries. Africa in particular offers a unique opportunity to use renewable energy technology in a competitive manner. This is a real “win-win” opportunity, increasing the penetration of clean renewable energy and bringing electrification to some of the world’s poorest citizens. A special effort will be needed in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ladies and gentlemen, Taken together, these 7 areas represent the Action Plan, the concrete basis for a new European Energy Policy. It is truly ambitious. It is a vision of Europe with a thriving and sustainable energy economy, that has grasped the opportunities behind the threats of climate change and globalisation, gained world leadership in clean, efficient and low-emission energy technologies and become a motor for prosperity and a key contributor to growth and jobs. It is the beginning of a new industrial revolution in energy. To achieve this vision we need to act jointly and urgently. As I stated many times during this presentation, this is not just a challenge, it is an opportunity, and I am convinced that for those who seize it, the rewards will be great. Let us do so. Thank you.

Presso la sala della Délégation pour l’Union européenne dell’Assembla Nazionale, la Fondation pour l’Innovation politique, Fondation Robert Schuman e Institut Montaigne hanno organizzato un seminario sulla politica monetaria e fiscale dell’Unione Europea. Hanno partecipato tra gli altri: - Pierre Lequiller, Député, Président de la Délégation pour l’Union européenne de l’Assemblée Nationale; - James Elles MEP, Chairman, European Ideas Network; - Jean-Dominique Giuliani, Président, Fondation Robert Schuman; - Joachim Bitterlich, Executive Vice-President, Veolia Environnement; Chairman of EIN WG3 on Ecomomic, Monetary and Fiscal Policy; - Pierre Mehaignerie, Ancien ministre; Président de la Commission des finances de l’Assemblée Nationale; - Francis Mer, Ancien Ministre, ancien Président de la Fondation pour l’Innovation politique, Président du Conseil de surveillance du Groupe SA; - Daniel Gros, Director, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels; - Ross Walker, Economist, Royal Bank of Scotland; Rapporteur, EIN Working Group on Economic, Monetary and Fiscal Policy; - Jean-Claude Paye, Président, Fondation pour l’Innovation politique; former Secretary General, OECD; - Dirk Hudig Fipra; former Secretary General, UNICE; - Hervé Novelli, député UMP; former MEP; - Jerôme Bédier, Président, Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution; Président de la Commission Europe du MEDEF; - Peter Jungen, President, European Enterprise Institute, Brussels; - Franck Debié, Directeur Général, Fondation pour l’Innovation politique; - Jaime Mayor Oreja MEP, Vice-President, EPP-ED Group at the European Parliament; - Claude Bébéar, Président, Institut Montaigne; Président du Conseil de surveillance, Groupe AXA.

Nel corso del working group sulla riforma dei servizi pubblici di EIN (L’Aia, 2 maggio 2007) Evert Jan van Asselt dell’Istituto di Ricerca del CDA, ha tenuto un discorso sulla sanità descrivendo il sistema dei Paesi Bassi nel quadro delle regole europee. Ladies and gentlemen, The subject of this meeting, Healthcare, has not been chosen without a reason. A year ago a new healthcare system has been introduced in the Netherlands. It was preceded by 25 years of discussion. In the past, reform proposals came to grief in parliament on the last moment. Since then discussions about healthcare reform have become an ideological battlefield between Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, and sometimes also between wings within parties. But, the government of Jan Peter Balkenende managed to implement a radically new system. The reason why the reform was a success this time, was because of a clear and coherent vision about the future of the health care system, and because of the support of the coalition partners and, not unimportant, social partners. The Dutch reforms are not finished. We are halfway. But the most important part lies behind us. The political sensitive part, the health insurance, has been reformed. But there is more. The coming years the other part has to be deregulated, the organisation of the provision of healthcare. Only when both reforms are implemented, the Netherlands will fully reap the fruits of the efforts, because of the interaction between the health insurance and the provision of healthcare. What will the healthcare sector look like in 2025? Will there be 27 different healthcare systems in Europe? Or will there be convergence towards one European model? Will there be one internal market for healthcare providers and health insurance companies? Or will the integration not come about? At this moment we see patients who receive there healthcare abroad. We also see chains of hospitals, even with a stock-exchange notation. Some of them are operating in several countries as multinationals. On the other hand, foreign investment in healthcare is still very small. And multinational health insurance companies are absent, as far as I know. Will this picture look different in 2025? I think so. Firstly, patient will look for the best healthcare they can get, and will be prepared to travel for it. Internet is a great help in this case. It gives information about hospitals and doctors else where. The mayor hindrances for an internal market of healthcare is the way hospitals and doctors are financed. As long as the national of local governments bears the burden of capital investments of hospitals, the internal market will not easily develop. For only when hospitals will receive prices for their products on an all inclusive basis, an internal market has a real chance. When hospitals use integral cost-prices, the nationality of the patient or the way he is insured doesn’t matter. Especially in border regions a more integrated approach is obvious. What about the internal market for healthcare provision? Investors will look for opportunities to invest in hospitals and other healthcare providers. The healthcare sector is a rapidly and continuously growing sector in an ageing Europe. These investors won’t restrict themselves to one country, but will build Europe-wide empires, and will try to influence European policymakers. Another possibility are international mergers of hospitals. Thirdly, the health insurance market. Perhaps there will be a European health insurance market, but this seems not so likely because of the national differences in financing healthcare, and also because health insurers are not only insurance companies but also purchasers of healthcare services on behalf of their insured. So synergy on an European level is not so easy to obtain for multinationals. Although it would be very interesting to have international health insurers, because they can throw a fresh light on national political taboos. For instance, in the Netherlands it is politically very risky to propose that people should pay a part of the treatment costs themselves, although this is a very normal practice in Europe. It reflects the Dutch risk averse culture; we want to insure our risks for 100%. It also reflects our fear of not solidarizing with people with a low income. International health insurance companies would also take care of a rapid dissemination of new practices. The same holds true for international chains of hospitals. To the extent that the healthcare sector in Europe will look different in 2025, depends for a great deal on the deregulation of the health care sector by national EU-members. But there is another driving force, and that is the nature of healthcare itself. The care for aged and handicapped will in the future still be organised on a regional level, and more and more in small communities. This will not change fundamentally. Although a regional level doesn’t mean that a Dutchman will only receive care in the Netherlands. A lot of Dutchmen already use their health care voucher to receive their care in Spain. And not only their care but also there pension benefits. For the healthcare aimed at curing someone from a disease, the tendency will be towards differentiation. The driving force behind this differentiation is standardisation. Due to new technology and new medical knowledge, health care changes. What was difficult operations ten years ago, can be a standard treatment now. For example an art hip. This standardisation offers opportunities for small healthcare providers who are specialized in one special treatment. And not necessary only on a national level. Some kinds of healthcare lend themselves very well for an European scale, because of their economies of scale. A patient with a very rare disease wants a specialist who knows everything about his or her disease. For most people it won’t be a problem if the doctor is a foreigner. If the disease is life threatening; people are prepared to take a plane to fly to that specific doctor. So there is a market on European level for specialized doctors, when economies of scale are decisive. This offers an opportunity to Europe. Here the internal market has clear added value for the patient. Specialized centres on an European level, with a low volume, but clarity of the outcome of the treatment, should be stimulated. For example specialized cancer centres, or eye centres. Smaller countries will gain by an open market because the can profit from European centres in other countries, which reduces costs. Bigger countries can export their healthcare in this way. Also internet offers possibilities for a more integrated healthcare market. Specialist from abroad can be consulted by internet. Photo’s can be sent by email. Even operating at a distance is already possible. But only when there is an system of reimbursement that makes this possible, these opportunities will be available for all citizens, and not only the rich. To conclude, the nature of health care provision itself, will stimulate the internal market. It depends on the regulation, how quick this processes will go. As I said, the Netherlands set a first step in introducing more market force in the health care system. We introduced a total new insurance system. The new system is a combination of two parts of the old systems. In the old situation there was a compulsory health insurance for everybody with an income less than 32.000 euro, and a voluntary private insurance for everyone with a higher income. In the new situation every Dutchman has the obligation to insure himself against a basic insurance package. The minimum package is specified by law. The premium for this basic coverage is about 1000 euro and is the same for everyone who is insured by the same insurance company. Between insurance companies the premiums can differ. The premium is independent of ones health or income. And, health insurance companies are obliged to accept everybody who wants to insure him or herself. A fund, filled with income dependent premiums paid by employers, takes care of the risk equalisation. That means that insurance companies are compensated for bad risks, in such a way that there portfolio is risk neutral. The insurance companies can be for profit or not for profit. Crucial for the new system is that the two components of solidarity are separated. The solidarity between healthy and sick is not mixed up with the solidarity between rich and poor people. The former solidarity is typical a task of insurance companies. They insure people with different risks of health. The losses they are forces to take, because of the obligation to accept switching patients, are compensated by a system of risk adjustment. The solidarity between rich and poor on the other hand, has nothing to do with healthcare as such. It has to do with income politics. Therefore we have separated both solidarities and placed income solidarity in the tax system and risk solidarity in the insurance system. People with a lower income receive an income dependent tax credit, related tot the healthcare premium they have to pay. So, everybody can afford a health insurance. This guarantees income solidarity. The advantage is that insurance companies are no longer hampered by income politics of the governments and can fully concentrate on concluding purchasing contracts with health providers and on the service they want to offer their insured. This system of tax credits has been implemented by Balkenende on a broader scale. Subsidies for renting a house and for child care are also transformed from a subsidy into a tax credit. Income politics in the Netherlands is therefore concentrated in the fiscal system, which is a very good thing. It offers transparency and make the system more just. The Netherlands have been innovative on the insurance market. But on the supply side of healthcare we have a lot to do. In a lot of countries the situation is reversed. The insurance market is strictly regulated by the government and the healthcare market is fairly free. Even in Great Britain with its National Health Service, there are commercial healthcare providers. The Netherlands, have so far, only very reluctantly set steps towards more market forces in the provision of healthcare. The social democrats are opposed to more market force, while the CDA is in very much in favour of it, if it can be combined with solidarity. Progress is only possible step by step in the coalition of CDA, Labour party and Christian Union. The CDA want hospitals to be societal enterprises, which invest their profit into the healthcare sector and use it to improve their own service level instead of paying dividend it to shareholders. The societal enterprise has in common with a commercial enterprise that it is exposed to market forces. It has in common with a societal organisation that it is independent of the government and has a social mission. In case of a hospital that social mission is the goal to provide good healthcare to the patients. Profit is only relevant in so far it helps to improve the quality of the service provided. In the current systems, the real costs hospitals make are calculated afterwards, and compensated the next year. A hospital that doesn’t function well, won’t get easily into financial problems. The other side of the picture is that a good performing hospital is not rewarded. Of course this system doesn’t stimulate the dissemination of innovation. New better treatments are not or later implemented because the stimulus to change is absent. Therefore hospitals should be bearing the costs of capital themselves and budget guarantees should be abolished. The number of patients should become decisive for the income of hospitals and not the number of available hospital beds in the hospital, as it is now. I expect that the new minister of Health, the former director of the Research Institute for the CDA, will change this. We need to change the system in a way that it provokes innovation and entrance of new healthcare providers. Problems with Europe The biggest problem the Dutch government had when it wanted to introduce the new health insurance was not the support for the reform of the public. Of course there were pessimists who said the system would be a disaster. The real problem was Europe. More specifically, the European law, or the interpretation of that law, or better the uncertainty about the interpretation. Paradoxally, the problems arose because of the wish to introduce more market forces into the healthcare sector. As a result, the Netherlands clashed with the rules of the internal market! We wanted more market, but Europe was an obstacle. When health insurance companies perform economic activity they are regarded as enterprises. And then, foreign companies should have entrance to the Dutch health insurance market. The supervision on foreign insurance companies is not a task of the Dutch governance, but of the government of the homeland of the insurance company. Every private insurance company which is recognized anywhere in the European Union, is allowed to offer services in the whole union. The Dutch government may not hinder that insurance company to offer its services on the Dutch market, unless she has very good reasons for it. The general interest of a country can justify such restrictions. But the hindrances have to be proportional. What were these restrictions on the Dutch insurance market. An important one is that an insurance company may only offer a insurance policy with a standard coverage, as is defined in the Dutch law. Another one is that risk selection is not allowed. So, there are a few essential restrictions for insurance companies. These restrictions contradict with the rules of the internal market. But these restrictions can be justified because of the general interest, which is: solidarity between sick and healthy people and a good health insurance for all Dutchman. And, these restrictions do not go further than necessary. But there was another question that had to be answered before. The question arose whether the health insurance market wasn’t already harmonised by a Directive. The problem for the Netherlands was that the interpretations of the relevant Directive, in this case the Third Non-Life Insurance Directive, differed a lot, and case law was missing. The question whether this Directive harmonised the health insurance market was not easy to answer. One could say that the Netherlands took a risk by implementing the law. There was indeed a letter of the Dutch Eurocommisioner Bolkenstein, which said that the Commission saw no problems with the Dutch interpretation, but it also said the last word was to the Court of Justice. Still the Dutch health insurance, in particular its risk equation, runs a risk, all be it a small one. So, the Netherlands had problems with the European law. In which way can the European law be improved? I will concentrate on the insurance market, and make a general point. Regarding the insurance market it is desirable that there will be more clarity towards the interpretation of the Third Non-life Directive. That would take away a lot of obscurity for governments. It also would diminish the possibility for antagonists to sow doubts. Our own research showed that the even the old Dutch health insurance system was not Europe proof! When it is allowed to interpret the Third Non-life Directive as the Netherlands did, the conclusion is that the insurance market is not harmonized by the Third Non-life Directive on important aspect which are relevant for organizing solidarity. Governments may restrict the free movement of services when the general interest is at stake, and in so far these restrictions are proportional. But that still leaves unanswered the question which restrictions are allowed. It is therefore desirable that the exceptions are clarified. This can be done by a adaptation of the Directive, or the Commission can do an interpretive communication. Soft law would help a lot. But, which instrument will be chosen, it is clear that Europe has to define more clearly than now, how member state can combine solidarity with the internal market. How much restrictions are accepted in order to guarantee solidarity. We need clarification on how economic activities and the general interest relate to each other. To often, the decision of the Court of Justice are dependent on occasional solutions and on attentive public servants who signal problems with the European law. We need that clarity. Only when we can make the combination of market forces and solidarity, we are able to keep our health care affordable for everybody. How does the Dutch system relates to more market forces. In the long run I expect that that the Dutch healthcare system will be totally ready for the internal market. For insurance companies this is already the case; every insurance company who is admitted in its homeland can offer a health insurance in the Netherlands, if the conditions of new health insurance law are met. For hospitals I think we will be much further within five years. When the capital costs are integrated in the prices and when the prices are not dictated anymore by a state led authority, but are free for the bulk of the products, and when hospitals can decide themselves whether to build a new building or not, nothing will prevent a foreign hospital to enter the Dutch market then. The direction in which the healthcare system in the Netherlands goes, is good, I think. The system is open towards Europe on the one hand, and offers sufficient guarantees for quality and affordability of healthcare on the other hand. It will be much more innovative, and therefore in the end cheaper, and perhaps it will even provide services to other European citizens. Thank you for your attention.

The 6th Annual Conference of the Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University, “Emerging from the Financial Crisis” took place in New York City on February 20th. A combination of distinguished policymakers, bankers, regulators, journalists, and academics met for the day. Members of the Center, including its Director, Edmund Phelps, and Foreign Members took key roles in the conference, as did Members of its Advisory Board and its Chairman, Peter Jungen. The Hon. Paul Volcker, currently Chairing President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, was the luncheon speaker. The dinner speaker was the financier and philanthropist George Soros. Dr. Josef Ackerman, Chairman of Deutsche Bank, gave concluding remarks. Three Nobel Laureates, Robert Mundell and Joseph Stiglitz as well as Phelps, spoke during the day’s panels. An immense range of views became apparent regarding the main causes of financial crisis and, correspondingly, what could be done to pull the economy out of it. There was debate on the kind of restructuring of the financial sector that was needed, and debate on the sorts of regulations the reformed system would require. There was a debate on whether the so-called global imbalances were the underlying cause and what adjustments to imbalances would be desirable. Finally, there was a debate on the new administration’s plans for public investment and job creation. During the day, there were provocative and creative proposals for financial reform. There was a call for a return to “narrow banking.” There was also an appeal for recreation of classic “investment banks” dedicated to supporting both long-term investment and innovation projects in the business sector. There were demands for strengthening the international lender of last resort by providing more resources to international financial institutions, demands for the creation of an international regulator or supervisor of the financial sector, and for dealing with tax havens and other uncooperative jurisdictions. The Hon. Christine Lagarde, Minister of the Economy of France made a plea for coordination, both in policy and in establishing the new regulatory and supervisory system. The issue of how the Fed and other central bank functions have shifted amid the crisis was discussed and proposals were made for “exit policies” from non-traditional activities going forward. The issue of whether central banks should focus on keeping consumer price inflation in check or whether they should also focus on asset price inflation was also discussed. The issue of simplicity versus transparency of financial instruments was debated, with some blaming the complexity of the financial instruments, rather than the lack of transparency. In coming weeks, the Center on Capitalism and Society intends to review these proposals and present a white paper for further debate about different options on what to do going forward to emerge from the financial crisis and regain the dynamism that the U.S. economy has lost.

Secondo Antonio Estache e Tomás Serebrisky (in “Where Do We Stand on Transport Infrastructure Deregulation and Public-Private Partnership?”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3356), l’evoluzione delle public-private partnerships (PPP) sembra indicare un percorso comune: le iniziative private lavorano per poco, ma dopo uno shock nel settore, il pubblico ritorna sottoforma di regolatore, di finanziatore o di proprietario. La ricerca analizzare l’efficacia della deregolamentazione nelle infrastrutture di trasporto secondo: l’efficienza, il punto di vista fiscale e degli utenti. Il paper analizzare le difficoltà e gli impegni necessari da parte dei governi in materia di: struttura delle tariffe, qualità (timetable, sicurezza, ambiente), regole di accesso, la tendenza verso il re-bundling e la riduzione della concorrenza tra settori, e gli inventivi tramite la concorrenza “yardstick”.

La Commissione Attali ha presentato al Presidente francese Sarkozy, il suo Rapporto “per liberare la crescita francese”. Non si tratta “né di una relazione né di uno studio, ma di un manuale d’uso per riforme urgenti e radicali”. Partendo da una diagnosi sullo stato del mondo e della Francia, il rapporto fissa gli obiettivi primari per realizzare una profonda innovazione del paese. Il testo è suddiviso in quattro parti riguardanti la “piena partecipazione alla crescita mondiale”, “i protagonisti della mobilità e della sicurezza”, la “nuova governance al servizio della crescita” e la “riuscita della liberazione”. Vengono individuate 316 decisioni, corrispondenti ad altrettante riforme. Di queste, 20 sono indicate come “fondamentali” e fanno a loro volta riferimento ad otto “ambizioni” che esprimono la “volontà d’insieme” del rapporto. Il testo integrale in francese è disponibile in formato PDF: Rapporto della Commissione Attali (lingua francese)

Il Gruppo del PPE-DE ha tenuto la settima edizione dell’ Università estiva annuale dell’European Ideas Network (EIN), la rete delle fondazioni europee vicine al PPE-DE, a Fiuggi che si è svolta da giovedì 18 a sabato 20 settembre. La tradizionale Università estiva dell’EIN rappresenta un forum privato per un’approfondita discussione politica. Nel corso di una serie di tavole rotonde e sessioni plenarie, i partecipanti hanno discusso sul tema: “Il mondo nel 2025: Un posto per i Valori in un mondo d’incertezze”. Una lista eccezionale di oratori: François Fillon, Primo Ministro Francese, Silvio Berlusconi, Primo Ministro Italiano; Wilfred Martens Presidente del PPE ed ex Primo Ministro del Belgio; José Manuel Durão Barroso, Presidente della Commissione europea; Hans-Gert Poettering, Presidente del Parlamento europeo; Franco Frattini, Ministro degli Affari Esteri d’Italia ed ex Commissario europeo; Antonio Tajani, Vice presidente della Commissione Europea e Commissario responsabile per i Trasporti e Rodrigo Rato, ex Direttore generale del Fondo Monetario Internazionale. Sono state organizzate due speciali sedute plenarie sui temi ‘l’Economia globale e il suo futuro’ e ‘Valori europei o valori universali?’ I principali temi trattati sono stati: i valori: quale è il posto per i Valori in un mondo in rapido cambiamento? I nostri valori sono “universali” o “europei”? la situazione economica globale: quali ulteriori conseguenze del crollo del mercato creditizio? sui valori immobiliari? Una recessione globale? Che cosa ci aspetta? la Presidenza Francese: che cosa possiamo aspettarci su temi chiave come l’immigrazione è il cambiamento climatico? Il 18 settembre, Joseph Daul, Presidente del Gruppo PPE-DE al Parlamento Europeo, ha aperto i lavori dell’Università estiva, affiancato da Jaime Mayor Oreja, Vice-presidente del Gruppo PPE-DE, responsabile della Strategia politica e dell’European Ideas Network, da Stefano Zappalà e Iles Braghetto, capi della Delegazione italiana del Gruppo PPE-DE. L’European Ideas Network è un gruppo di riflessione paneuropeo aperto, creato nel 2002 dal Gruppo PPE-DE al Parlamento europeo. Questo network riunisce politici, imprenditori, accademici, giornalisti, consiglieri politici ed esperti esterni, per discutere alcune delle principali problematiche con le quali è confrontata oggi l’Europa. Coordina anche le attività congiunte di oltre quaranta think thank nazionali e le fondazioni politiche in tutta l’Unione europea.

In occasione della presentazione del suo nuovo libro “Mondo Privato e altre storie”, Marta Dassu, direttore relazioni estere di Aspen Institute, già direttore del CESPI e consigliere per la politica estera nei governi D’Alema I e II, incontra i soci della fondazione per dibattere sui temi di carattere internazionale. Martedi 19 maggio ha avuto luogo “59 minuti con…”, l’iniziativa della Fondazione che mira a creare momenti di approfondimento con esponenti di spicco del mondo politico e imprenditoriale. Tema dell’incontro la crisi internazionale e il ruolo degli stati. La crisi, nella sua forma finanziaria, è indubbiamente partita negli Stati Uniti dove, negli anni passati, i consumi della classe media sono stati “drogati” grazie ad un facile accesso al credito: un gigante della domanda per fronteggiare un gigante della produzione, la Cina. Oggi l’economia americana è in caduta verticale ma l’ottimismo dell’America del nuovo presidente Obama vede comunque alcune opportunità che possono scaturire da questa crisi puntando per esempio sulla ricerca, sull’ambiente, sulle nuove tecnologie, nonché su un sistema di welfare per garantire una maggiore protezione sociale, su uno stile europeo. Tuttavia, queste misure hanno un costo e il debito americano sta crescendo verso una cifra superiore ai 10.000 Miliardi di dollari, pari al 70% del PIL (FMI). Più moneta e bassi tassi di interesse si tradurranno in inflazione e svalutazione: un bene per chi è indebitato, un danno per chi detiene attività denominate in dollari, come nel caso della Cina. I 2.000 Mld di dollari in riserve presso the People’s Bank of China hanno fatto dichiarare al governatore un auspicio per la creazione di una nuova valuta “paniere” per gli scambi internazionali in cui gli Stati Uniti potrebbero perdere la loro assoluta egemonia. Dichiarazione accolta con molta freddezza dalla nuova Presidenza dall’altro lato del Pacifico. La Cina è il potenziale vincitore della crisi, gli obiettivi economici e di leadership mondiale (per esempio all’interno del G20) che il paese sta raggiungendo si sono velocizzati rispetto ai programmi della classe dirigente cinese. L’espansionismo economico cinese in Africa è una strategia volta a garantire risorse per lo sviluppo futuro; l’Occidente, anche per la fallimentare politica post-coloniale di garantire aiuti in cambio di progressi nella governance e nella democrazia, oggi si trova escluso o marginalizzato nello sviluppo africano. Dal punto di vista militare invece, nonostante le recenti parate della Repubblica Popolare nei confronti di Taiwan (nonostante la recente distensione nei rapporti tra Pechino e Taipei), il differenziale rispetto agli Stati Uniti è ancora forte e saranno necessari almeno 15- 20 anni perché possa essere colmato. Il Presidente Obama, la cui politica estera si deve distinguere da quella del predecessore Bush, ha adottato una strategia basata principalmente sul consenso che sul timore. Rimane comunque irrinunciabile la leadership mondiale americana, anche in campo economico, nonostante le previsioni di chi intravede, alla fine della crisi, l’emergere di un nuovo dualismo, un G2 con USA e Cina. Questo scenario, seppur possibile, sembra improbabile sia per le forti differenze di fondo che esistono tra i due paesi, sia per il ruolo che potrebbe/dovrebbe avere l’Europa. L’Unione Europea sconta oggi le logiche individualistiche dei singoli paesi membri (che tendono a privilegiare gli interessi nazionali, anche in relazione alle immediate risposte contro la crisi, soprattutto in vista di importanti scadenze elettorali) nonché la mancanza di una leadership politica forte che, come visto nel caso della politica commerciale, potrebbe avere un peso non irrilevante sullo scacchiere internazionale. Ampliare il grado di cooperazione economica con gli Stati Uniti, magari promuovendo un area di libero scambio transatlantica, rafforzerebbe il peso dell’Occidente. All’opposto una maggiore cooperazione con una Russia, profondamente indebolita dall’attuale crisi ma ricca di petrolio e gas naturale, indebolirebbe il rapporto con gli Stati Uniti il cui ruolo è e sarà ancora fondamentale negli anni a venire. Oggi il rapporto tra USA e Europa vede per quest’ultima una forte rappresentazione di Francia, Gran Bretagna e Germania, per ragioni dimensionali, per impegno militare a fianco dell’America, e per il ruolo che questi paesi possono svolgere sullo scacchiere mediorientale. Il nostro paese, il quarto grande dell’UE, deve invece lottare per far valere il suo status. In questo senso il Presidente Berlusconi punta molto sul ruolo di ponte da svolgere tra Russia e Stati Uniti, ruolo che potrebbe essere sancito durante il prossimo G8, con un accordo nel settore della sicurezza globale o del contenimento degli armamenti. Con la Russia, l’UE dovrà affrontare le questioni legate all’allargamento ad Est e le conseguenti strategie nella gestione dei rapporti con le repubbliche ex sovietiche. I rapporti euro-russi si muovono inoltre lungo il gasdotto South Stream (progetto russo che collegherebbe le coste del Mar Nero ai Balcani e all’Europa centrale) che rafforzerebbe la dipendenza dalla Russia, diversamente dal Nabucco che, prevedendo il trasporto del gas principalmente da Iran, Iraq, bypassando Russia. L’attualità pone tuttavia l’UE di fronte ai timori dovuti all’impatto della crisi all’interno dei suoi confini. La difficile situazione economica di alcuni paesi dell’Est (molto vicini a rischio default) e della Spagna (per una bolla immobiliare fuori controllo e le politiche fallimentari del governo Zapatero) unite allo scetticismo verso le istituzioni comunitarie e alla debolezza di alcuni leader nazionali, potrebbero spaccare l’Unione, l’area Euro, o comunque pesare negativamente sui suoi sviluppi futuri. Per questo motivo è auspicabile l’approvazione del Trattato di Lisbona e la conseguente estensione di meccanismi decisionali più efficienti per il Consiglio, ovvero la maggioranza qualificata, per accrescere, nella sostanza, il peso del sistema europeo e prepararlo alle sfide del mondo globale.

Ernesto Gismondi, presidente di Artemide, azienda leader nel settore dell’illuminazione d’alta gamma, è stato relatore di un incontro dal tema: “Il Made in Italy e la nostra competitività ai tempi della crisi”. Attraverso l’esempio di Artemide, il Presidente ha evidenziato punti di forza e sfide di un’azienda che realizza un prodotto completamente “Made in Italy”. La ricerca continua dell’innovazione, della qualità e del design contraddistiguono un settore industriale di eccellenza, apprezzato a livello mondiale, che tuttavia ha risentito fortemente degli effetti della crisi. Gismondi sottolinea le difficoltà delle piccole e medie aziende italiane di fronte alla concorrenza estera, in particolare quella cinese. Il ricorso ai tribunali si dimostra spesso l’unica arma a disposizione per proteggere la proprietà industriale e l’originalità e la qualità di un prodotto. Le imprese sono costrette ad investire molto in questo tipo di azioni legali e nella richiesta di brevetti per poter vedere riconosciuto il valore aggiunto del proprio marchio. È necessario, afferma Gismondi, che le istituzioni identifichino strumenti efficaci a tutela del Made in Italy. Le aziende, da parte loro, devono continuare a puntare sulla qualità e l’innovazione, elementi che rendono i prodotti difficilmente imitabili.