This workshop will discuss methods for accurately evaluating the performance of public and private investment initiatives.
On 5 April 2017 Bruegel and the European Investment Bank are organising a workshop to discuss impact assessment of investment.
Impact assessment have gained a lot of attention in the recent years, following the need to accurately evaluate the performance of public and private investment initiatives. The European Investment Bank has worked on developing and critically re-evaluating these methods and reflected on the best practices which policy makers and practitioners should take into account when designing and implementing micro- and macro-based impact assessment frameworks.
This is an invitation-only workshop.
Evaluation Expert, team leade, European Investment Bank
European Commission, DG JRC
Head of Research & Market Analysis, European Investment Fund
Senior Economist, European Investment Bank
Director, Quality Assurance and Results Department, African Development Bank
Associate Professor, Ecole Polytechnique Palaiseau
Chief Economist, European Investment Bank
Professor, University of Strathclyde
Research Officer, European Investment Fund
Head of Division, European Investment Bank
European Investment Bank
European Investment Bank
Intellectual property (IP) is a cornerstone for incentivising innovation initiatives. It defines a framework within which firms and individuals can produce creations of intellect.
Now more than ever, the EU needs to address concerns about the significant decline in productivity growth and the increasing perception of unfairness. Completing the single market would unlock the EU's growth potential. At the same time, the EU should empower member states to fight inequality by helping them better distribute the gains arising from economic integration.
Mutually beneficial Jakarta-Seoul relationship could develop further with an upgrade in Jakarta’s sovereign debt.
How can we encourage long-term investment in Europe? Many factors hinder long-term investment but are there risks involved in reviewing existing regulation?
What’s at stake: Infrastructure investment has been and will continue to be a prominent campaign theme in the run up to the US elections. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have promised significant public investment in infrastructure. For some time, the discussion has revolved around the opportunities and costs of increased government infrastructure spending.
Austrian firms invested heavily in Central and Eastern Europe. They offshored the parts of the value chain that required specialized skills and produced valuable research. This resulted in lowered growth in Austria.
Divergence in debt levels and corporate health in China is growing, with many state-owned companies still stuck in the past and new industries such as tourism and healthcare overtaking the old ones. While fiscal and monetary stimulus may temporarily cover up the problems of companies in the old industries, a restructuring of these sectors seems inevitable.
Weakness in the Italian banking sector is a major concern for the euro area. Retail investors stand to lose out if BRRD bail-in rules are strictly applied, and many in Italy are seeking an exception for political reasons. However, Silvia Merler argues that this would set a dangerous precedent. She calls for an orderly bail-in, followed by compensation for investors mis-sold unsuitable products.
With the Juncker Plan, the European Commission intends to support valuable risky projects by expanding the risk capacity of the EIB. But has the new European Fund for Strategic Investments really been used to finance 'additional' projects?
The UK’s competitive edge in financial services is substantial and would be difficult to dislodge. But Brexit could damage London’s attractiveness as the centre of European banking, as an entry point to the EU and as a global financial hub. FDI is also at risk.
The dangerous cocktail of high debt and low growth in Europe calls for smart public investment that fosters growth whithout being a burden for public finances. Can public spending in R&D sustain innovation and growth, and does it qualify as a smart investment?
What’s at stake: Quantitative Easing has been criticized for generating inflation risks, financial stability risks, and distributional risks. The newest criticism from Kevin Warsh, a former Fed Governor, and the 2001 Nobel Prize laureate Michael Spence is that QE actually reduced investment!