Austrian oil pipeline through the Central European Aquifer

By Andrej Nosko, and Martin Horanský guest author

Slovak government is still unclear on the support for the project of oil pipeline extending the Soviet-era pipeline Druzhba through the largest Central European Aquifer of Žitný ostrov (Rye Island) from early nineties. The previous actions of the ruling party ministers are not matching the pre-election promises. The project of exporting the Russian oil into the Austrian refinery of Schwechat close to Wien was started by the joint venture between the Slovak Transpetrol (74% share) and Austrian OMV (26% share) in 2005.



This project made sense for both parties in the consortium, the Slovak Transpetrol fully under managerial control of largest Russian private oil company Yukos (with 49% ownership in Transpetrol) having access to its own upstream production, as well as the OMV, large refinery seeking to diversify its crude oil imports away from pricey Mediterranean tanker based supplies, in order to increase its competitiveness in the Central-European market (also against the Slovak refinery Slovnaft which is only 60 km away). The 60 km long pipeline with the capacity of 2.5 Mcm (with possibility of doubling this capacity) was nonetheless stopped by the Slovak Ministry of Environment (under control of minister László Miklós – SMK – Hungarian Coalition Party of the Dzurinda’s government), because of the questions around the ability to protect the important Aquifer as is illustrated in the Environmental Impact Assessment - EIA of the project from 2005.

Last year, the idea of building the oil pipeline through the national water reserve and important European Aquifer has been resurrected by the Fico’s government, when on 16 October 2009, his minister for Economy Jahnatek and his Austrian counterpart Mitterlehner signed a Memorandum of Understanding resurrecting the project, originally proposed by Vladimir Meciar on 2 March 1993.

This was complemented by an attempt of Fico’s party colleague MP Pellegrini, who attempted to reassign the level of protection for the Aquifer area in order to simplify the permitting process. Only under the intensive pressure from the media this attempt have been withdrawn. The concern for the public is that while there is an alternative routing for the pipeline, this would prolong the pipeline and in order to protect the aquifer, pipeline would have to pass through Austrian bird-refuge areas.

The current option, which has already received the Austrian green light for the 50km in Austria, is problematic for Slovaks, because of the strategic importance of the Danube Aquifer. According to the publicized information from the back-than minister Simon, the 10 km of projected pipeline in Slovakia is to be wholly owned, and under the control of the Slovak government. It is only the 50km of Austrian pipeline where the Slovak government has ‘only’ 74% share.

Therefore it is not understandable why in this context the Slovak government does not take active steps, although the politicians are uttering the pre-electoral words, the planning continues as if there was nothing to loose, or as if the environment on the Slovak side of the border was of lower value than that on the Austrian side.

It is appropriate to remember that it was the Fico’s minister of Economy who has re-started the Meciar’s project, and it is very important to remind our readers, the current ownership structure of the consortium: The shares in the joint venture Bratislava – Schwechat Pipeline GmbH, are same as in 2005, nonetheless the sole owner of Transpetrol a.s. is the Slovak Republic represented by Slovak Ministry of Economy. It is the same ministry, which is governed by Mr. Ľubomír Jahnátek (of Fico’s SMER-SD).



While the project is of small economic importance to Slovakia (EUR 30-90M per year if the whole capacity was utilized, less amortization and operating costs of transit depending on the split of revenue and the level of tariff, which are not known; in case the transit on the whole territory of Slovakia is considered, which is cca 0.03-0.09% of GDP), the risks for the country are too high. Besides the ecological risks from building the pipeline through the aquifer, there are additional economic risks. Pipeline, could improve the possibility of OMV's Schwechat refinery to compete with the Bratislava's MOL-Slovnaft refinery, thus potentially endangering the employment and tax revenues in Slovakia. Economic competition is a positive, nonetheless, not when the negative externalities are to be borne unilaterally by Slovakia.

Therefore what is really puzzling is why, the government and party of Robert Fico is supporting projects which are of minimal benefit for Slovakia and make more sense for Russia and Austria?

Regardless of the recent PR statements of Robert Fico saying, that while he is the prime minister, there will be no pipeline, and he does not understand why this is still making news. PM Fico has a track record of proposing projects of questionable value for Slovakia, while at the same time of real benefit for Russia. Recently, he agreed to fund a feasibility study to build a wide-gauge railroad through Slovakia, thus enabling direct rail connection from Russia to Austria. Similarly to the pipeline, this project has negative costs to Slovakia and lacks the commensurate benefits. While the railroad is different story, similarly to pipeline it increases the revenues and tax incomes of Slovakia’s neighbors at the costs of Slovakia. (Since the recently modernized rail transfer terminal Cierna nad Tisov in the high-unemployment burdened east of Slovakia would go out of business if the rail link to Vienna is completed)

The energy security argument, although mentioned by the politicians, does not work in this case. The theoretical possibility for Slovakia, to import oil from Austria and thus further diversify its oil supplies is unrealistic and not feasible. The AWP pipeline from Adriatic to Wiena does not have sufficient capacity to supply both Austria and Slovakia, (through the new pipeline in reverse mode) should a need arise, this has also been a reason why in early nineties, diversification for Czechoslovakia was not done via AWP but via TAL through Ingolstadt to Kralupy and Litvinov.

Moreover, Slovakia is already connected to Adriatic via Adria-pipeline connection shared with Hungary, which could supply additional oil in case of crisis, or need for price-motivated diversification of MOL owned Bratislava based refinery. Finally, if the rationale has been security, Fico’s government should not have turned down the offer from MERO, we have written about previously.

It therefore remains puzzling why is Mr. Fico acting more in the interest of Russia (and Austria) than in the interest of the country he has been elected to be a prime minister of.

Read more on Austrian oil pipeline through the Central European Aquifer

IMF blogger puzzled by Central Europe and Baltic experience in crisis

By Zdenek Kudrna

Ajai Chopra, Deputy Director of the IMF’s European Department, is puzzled by the different performance of Central European 3 (CE3 - Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary) and Baltic 3 (B3 - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) in the current crisis. He provides an elegant macroeconomic analysis and contrasts their experience to that of the Asian Crisis a decade ago. However, his analysis fails to note important differences in CE3 and B3 industrial structures that influence the sustainability of their respective economic models throughout the crisis and subsequent recovery. Over the last two decades, the CE3 economies developed traditional economic model based on manufacturing that makes them less vulnerable to financial crisis then is the service-led model of the B3.


Chopra finds that CE3 avoided the much greater currency collapses witnessed in East Asia by ‘luck’ stemming from:

• First, in contrast to the soft pegs in Asia, the CE3 currencies were floating.
• Second, the CE3 economies never suffered a full “sudden stop” of capital inflows as in Asia. Wholesale funding markets dried up, but western European parent banks maintained credit lines to their central European subsidiaries. In addition, bank supervision and capital levels in emerging Europe have been better than in Asia in the 1990s, helping limit financial sector strains.
• Third, the task for external financial assistance was therefore mostly limited to replacing temporarily impaired wholesale funding markets.
• And fourth, EU membership may have instilled confidence in the region’s long-term stability and catch-up potential due to an accelerated convergence process.

He then turns attention to the question why Baltics 3 have not been similarly ‘lucky’ and finds the key difference in:

• Hard currency pegs and expectations of early euro entry had helped attract large capital inflows, but these often fed real estate bubbles, caused heavy exchange rate overvaluations, and fostered a substantially larger accumulation of foreign-currency denominated private debt than in any other region.
• Current account deficits not only dwarfed those in central Europe, but also those in Asia in the late 1990s.

These explanations scratch the surface of the more important differences that stems from export structures. It is true that 2 of the 3 Baltic countries operated euro pegs, but this hardly justifies their higher suggested propensity to (i) join euro, (ii) attract capital inflows, (iii) borrow in foreign currencies. The CE3 currencies were reasonably stable in pre-crisis years, likelihood of joining euro was not substantially different, capital inflows comparable and, at least in case of Hungary, unhedged forex borrowing by households was equally prevalent. Thus we are left with the current account deficit to explain the difference in CE3 and B3 crisis experiences.

The difference in past current account deficits as well as present crisis experiences has a lot to do with different proportions and types of manufacturing established in these economies. Over the last two decades, Baltic countries were busy building service oriented economies, much to the applause of the outside world. They were providing logistical services to booming Russian exports and turned capital inflows into asset bubbles. They inflated their amicable growth rates by selling overvalued real estate to each other. Such growth drivers all but evaporated in the crisis and they offer limited opportunities for export-led recovery that are already hampered by the need to sustain the currency peg.

The CE3 built old fashion manufacturing economies that produced “stuff” for exports. Much of the capital inflow were direct investments into export-oriented production facilities. They have also achieved some progress in upgrading into more sophisticated export goods and are thus more tightly integrated into global supply chains. In crisis their industries proved more susceptible to stimulus packages in their export markets (such as cash for clunkers subsidies in Germany) and to replenishment of inventories that seem to drive the recent “green shoots”. Moreover, depreciation of their currencies puts their export industries into a promising position for export-led recovery once their export markets (Germany) start to recover.

The scholars who stubbornly insisted that there is no sustainable development without industrialization and industrial upgrading seem to be vindicated by this comparative experience.

Read more on IMF blogger puzzled by Central Europe and Baltic experience in crisis

Crisis and funding of research

By Katka Svickova

In normal times, politicians of all strands are unanimously committed to the support of education, research and development. They never forget to stress how important these areas are to secure future prosperity. In crisis times, the “now” becomes more important than the future prosperity as governments are confronted with hard choices how best to use public funding to alleviate the negative effects of the economic crisis and help to re-start the up-cycle. Instead of the promised growth, public budgets for education and research either stagnate or fall in several Central and Eastern European countries (and as might be the case elsewhere in Europe, too).


A few months ago, investing in research and development was still promoted as one of the solutions to the economic crisis. Accordingly, the Czech national anti-crisis plan committed to increasing the R&D public spending over the next three years. Originally, the spending on research should grow by 8 % in 2010. Yet at the end of June, the government decided to freeze the annual outlays on research over the next three years at the level of 2009.

In addition to this, the Czech university and research community is in a sharp dispute over the allocation of these research funds. The conflict in essence boils down to rebalancing the spending to favor applied at the expense of basic research. The prevailing “now before then” logic favors the applied research – as a means to give a boost to industrial innovations. The funding allocations should be more result - and performance - oriented but the criteria, according to which the evaluation of performance is done, are far from perfect and heavily disputed.

Within Central and Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic actually belongs to countries with comparatively high governmental outlays to research: in 2007, it was 0,58 % of GDP as compared to the CEE average of about 0,4 % of GDP. However, both Czech Republic as well as the region are below the EU-27 average of 0,67 % of GDP spent on research from public funds (comparisons and calculations are based on available Eurostat data).

The education and research budget is now under strain not only in the Czech Republic. In Latvia, for example, the spending was reduced by about 65 million EUR affecting teachers’ salaries and resources to vocational schools, scientific institutions, state universities and colleges. The cuts were adopted under the pressure to trim the public budget in a country perhaps most stricken by the economic crisis in Central and Eastern Europe so far. They brought students and teachers to demonstrate in the streets in the course of spring. Also in Poland, discussions are under way to cut educational and research spending.

The developments show that despite the continuous mantras about the importance of research and development, these sectors are also subject to economic cycles and the workings of politics. A question that emerges from the Czech debate and governmental action is whether the cuts as well as the new rules for dividing public funding for research were passed after a profound weighing of short-term and long-term consequences of these decisions. To the most important consequences of the current decisions affect the capacity to engage in basic research. The abrupt shift of funding from research institutions such as Academy of Sciences (and to lesser extent universities) that are focused on basic research to institutes of applied research that are connected to various ministries and major industrial firms, may in the long term undermine both.

From the short-term perspective, more support to applied research in the situation when the budgets of the private sector are strained might bring more immediate results and help to increase the competitiveness of the industry. However, the private sector is also more likely to finance this type of research itself after the worst effects of the crisis on firms are over. On the other hand, basic research requires a lot of funds with uncertain and long-term results, and is thus not so attractive for the private sector. Moreover, the institutes focused on basic research are fundamental for creating the necessary human capital that allows applied research institutes to operate successfully within the global research networks. It is therefore here where public funding plays a crucial role.

Making public choices about educational and research priorities, and subsequent reforms of the system, including how public funds are allocated, are relevant in all conditions. However, the “now” perspective of crisis times should not prevent a decision-making based on sound weighting of both short-term and long-term consequences of the different options.

Read more on Crisis and funding of research

The Political Economy of Managed Migration by Georg Menz (book review)

by Lucia Kurekova

Georg Menz. The Political Economy of Managed Migration. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. 298 pp. ISBN: 978-0-19-953388-6. Forthcoming in Acta Oeconomica.

Migration continues to represent an important academic and policy issue, not least due to its critical implications for political, economic, social, demographic and cultural aspects of life of individuals as well as societies. Before the 2008 world economic crisis loomed in, labor and skill shortages in booming European economies incited ‘war on talent’, forcing the European governments to redefine the basic principles of their migration policies. A recent book by Georg Menz “Political Economy of Managed Migration” addresses a topical issue of development of migration policy in the EU, both at the level of the countries and at the level of the European Union, proposing a paradigmatic shift towards ‘managed migration’. His analysis of a range of traditional immigration countries - Germany, France and the United Kingdom – together with new immigration states - Italy, Ireland and Poland is a significant contribution to migration studies, international relations and Europeanization literature and to the field of political economy. Both the novelty in respect to theoretical cross-fertilization of different fields and the breath and depth of the evidence that the author assembles and presents about the issue of active migration policy make the book an important social science read.

The first part of the book engages with explaining and connecting the rationale of the three analytical angles: political economy angle, non-state actors angle and multiple arenas (Europeanization) angle. Acknowledging that migration in the EU takes on both security and economic dimension, an important contention of the book is that the states have moved towards ‘managed migration’ of labor while simultaneously taking more restrictive stand towards other forms of migration. The most crucial novelty that the work offers is an account of the factors that determine different predilections of the states in respect to preferred types of migrants in terms of their skill levels and occupational profiles. Advocating the competitive state thesis which is behind the convergence towards more open national-level labor migration policies, the author argues that regulation of migration is strongly influenced by differences in the systems of political economy across countries, namely the nexus of production strategies of corporations, the sectoral composition of the economy and labor market regulation. The major differences between prototypical liberal market economies (LMEs) and coordinated market economies (CMEs) are embodied in the preferences of labor market institutional actors, namely the employers associations and unions embedded in different systems of political economy that will seek to influence governments to adopt labor migration policies reflecting the profile of migrants deemed complementary to national production strategies. Along these lines, the active migration policy is treated as a case study of Europeanization processes where multiple arenas in which the governments play the games can be powerfully established but which essentially provides multitude of evidence of the bottom-up Europeanization and parallel rather than sequenced timing of the games.

After outlining the argument and methodological choices in the introductory chapter, chapter two engages with past legacies and experiences of the countries which play an important role in defining migration policies currently. However, the author deems traditional typology of post-colonial versus guest worker legacies in major immigration countries outdated. He contends that from a political economy angle, the similarities in labor migration regulation across countries are remarkable already in the after-war economic boom period, giving compelling examples of how (French) Renault, (German) Mercedes Benz and (British) London Underground conducted extremely similar recruitment activities in Algeria, Turkey and Barbados respectively. His analysis at this stage, however, makes the reader wonder in which way managed migration of the 21-st century is “a new paradigm” as he repeatedly argues throughout the work. The author’s own propositions suggest that if an attempt is made to understand migration policies in the context of economic conditions and fundamentals, it becomes evident that specific external and internal economic pressures make all governments susceptible to cater to the needs of big employers and drivers of job creation and economic growth.

Third chapter, a core of the book, outlines the logic of his two main hypotheses related to his innovative framework: 1) the varieties of capitalism and skill hypothesis and 2) the sectoral hypothesis. Using the extended typology of Hancke et al (2007), he anticipates that gradual innovation and concentration on high value added production in CMEs and relative to that more radical innovation in LMEs will induce the CME economies to be interested in migrants with specific skills and the LME employers rather to seek migrants that have general and transferable skills which are able to respond more readily to flexible corporate strategies. Further, the employers in the mixed and the emerging market economies (MMEs and EMEs) will resemble more divided strategies and their preferences will reflect the model that they are approaching. Sectoral hypothesis further contends that the employers will take into account the relative size of component sectors of the economy (primary-secondary-tertiary) and the relative importance of these sectors will affect the profile of economic migrants deemed desirable by employer associations. He sets out to evidence the predictions in the next two chapters. The author, however, succeeds only partly in providing sufficient evidence and clarity to his argumentation, which is partly due to a great density of information that he provides on each country study. In addition, an endogeneity issue of the sectoral hypothesis in relation to the varieties of capitalism theory needs to be raised – different preponderance towards secondary versus tertiary sector between the types of political economies is part of the VoC framework, deeming a separate hypothesis related to the effect of the size of sectors on migration policies essentially redundant and nearly inseparable from the first one.

In the fourth chapter the author looks at the traditional immigration countries – Germany, France and the United Kingdom and offers a careful overview of how migration policy evolved overtime and across issues (labor, asylum seekers, and family reunion). He carefully traces the positions of interests groups and NGOs within the countries and maps the trajectories of more or less successful representation (depending on their organizational capacities, domestic actor coalitions and other issues) of their interests vis-à-vis home governments and potentially the EU level institutions through the governments. Chapter four carries out similar analysis for the new immigration countries: Ireland, Italy and Poland which was chosen as a representative case from among the new accession states. The chapter argues that organizational power of interest groups has critically shaped national strategies which, however, has been much less the case in the new accession countries where a strong tendency to adopt acquis communitaire in the area of migration and asylum policies, in spite of some clearly negative implications for these countries, has prevailed. Mimicking of policy choices has taken place more generally in the new immigration countries which, the author claims adding refinement to the argument, tend to look for policies and solutions to their neighbors which are structurally similar. In that respect, his contention that the new accession countries adopt measures similar to CME economies, namely Germany, is particularly interesting and potentially creates an interesting avenue for further enquiry.

The two chapters with country studies are critical to the testing of the book’s framework. While his carefully gathered material univocally confirms that economic perceptions of migration have prevailed, clearly due to the active input of employers and support of unions who have changed their no immigration stance, the most innovative parts of his theory are not evidenced sufficiently. While his argument goes that Germany (or France) should want to attract ‘specific’ skills while liberal market economies such as the UK (or Ireland) should frame policies which favor generic skills, it rather seems to be the case that while low-skilled immigration is left to be regulated by the market, the governments irrespective of its political economy fundamentals have converged on explicit policies towards bringing in highly skilled migrants, regardless of their skill specificity. This critique can be proposed not only because of the evident gap between the designed active migration policies and the success of their implementation (Germany but also the Czech Republic provide ample evidence of the policy ‘failure’) but also because the author failed to provide any hard data about the skill profiles of the incoming migrants into at least the prototypical cases of varieties of capitalism that he scrutinizes.

The evidence about the incoming migrants seems to be crucial in order to substantiate the major argument about different skill cohorts being attracted based on the underlying political economy structures and institutions of host countries. Leaving such evidence out shows that the author has committed an unfortunate fallacy in failing to acknowledge that migration is a dyadic relationship and that sending countries matter as much as the receiving countries in determining the profiles (skill, education) of incoming migrants. To be fair with the author, in this respect he can only be blamed for not advancing the boundaries of migration policy studies which tend to vastly underestimate both structural and institutional home country parameters in the analysis of migration patterns. Nevertheless, the overview of the structure of East-West after-accession migration provides ample evidence of the above claim and is in contradiction to the predictions of Menz’ framework. For example, evidence suggests that relative not only to domestic population but also to the other migrant groups, a bulk of EU8 migrants in the UK and Ireland have gained employment in secondary tier of economy (manufacturing industry and construction). Further, important differences in terms of migrant sectors of employment can be drawn if sending country is accounted for (CSO, 2008; Accession Monitoring Report, 2008; European Commission, 2008).

In sum, the weaknesses of Menz’s book are a corollary of his ambitious attempt to perhaps answer too many questions, at the expense of fleshing out his main arguments about the uniqueness of managed migration in the new millennium and about the implications of various political economy structures and institutions on the active migration policy sufficiently. First, while the evidence that the current world economic crisis is providing about migration policies supports his point about the crucial weight of ‘economics’, it also seems to elucidate that it is economic fundamentals such as growth and job creation rather than economic structures that are substantial determinants of the form and shape of migration policy. Second, it is somewhat paradoxical that while the author at one hand validly and interestingly brings the agency in through the role he assigns to labor market associations, he at the same time leaves it out via failing to attribute necessary attention to the account of the actual (rather than hypothesized) migrant profiles and to take seriously the push side of the migration equation. Third, while he contends that migration policy reveals that state and state policies continue to matter and that the state has not retreated but rather “a recast state with new priorities is playing role in engineering the construction of regulatory regimes ensuring a steady labor supply of desirable talent and skill portfolio” (p.37), his evidence partly suggest that state is hardly insulated from interest groups. This is particularly clear through his ample reference to dilemmas and even conflicts attached to allocating private but also public resources to retraining and upskilling domestic labor versus importing foreign labor which have important implications for future economic and social development of host (and home) countries.

Against this critique, however, the pioneering and innovative aspects of author’s research, partly introduced in his earlier contributions, must be fully acknowledged. The inter-disciplinary nature of the book as well as a serious attempt to conduct comparative work not only across (six!) cases but also overtime make the book everything that the migration discipline has been calling for. I have no doubt that the book is likely to entice rich scholarly as well as policy debate across different research areas that the author draws on and valuably contributes to.

References:
Accession Monitoring Report. 2008. May 2004 – December 2007. A Joint Online Report by the Home Office, Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs and Communities and Local Government.

CSO (Central Statistical Office). 2008. Census 2006. Non-Irish nationals living in Ireland. Government of Ireland. June.

European Commission. 2008. Employment in Europe 2008. DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Brussels.

Hancke, Bob, Martin Rhodes and Mark Thatcher. 2007. Beyond varieties of capitalism. Conflict, contradictions and complementarities in the European economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Read more on The Political Economy of Managed Migration by Georg Menz (book review)

The complicated politics of free movement

by Chris Wright, guest author
PhD Candidate, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, cflw2@cam.ac.uk

Public policy-making invariably involves weighing the potential benefits derived from anticipated policy outcomes against the possible costs. This is particularly the case with labour immigration, which depending on the attributes of immigrants and the labour requirements of receiving economies, can deliver substantial macroeconomic benefits to host countries. But expansionary labour immigration policies can also deliver a range of unanticipated outcomes, and tend to be electorally unpopular. The balancing act between economic benefits and political costs was particularly apparent in the deliberations of the 15 Western European member states of the European Union (‘the EU-15’) when 10 Central and Eastern Europe states joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. The EU-15 states were permitted to restrict nationals from the new member states from freely working in their labour markets for up to seven years, but the transitional measures used by EU-15 governments were mixed and varied.

On the accession of the eight states that joined in on 1 May 2004 – the ‘A8’ states – Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom were the only three EU-15 states to allow free movement from the outset. When the EU further enlarged three years later to include Bulgaria and Romania (the ‘A2’ states), only Sweden and Finland opened their labour markets from the date of accession.

There is no straightforward explanation for the varying responses of EU-15 states to free movement, but domestic political pressures and economic institutional factors – not to mention the policy positions of other member states (1)– certainly played a part. This is evident in the case of the UK, which was the only large member of the EU-15 to allow A8 nationals to freely work, but subsequently prevented A2 nationals from being able to do so.

The majoritarian nature of Westminster democracy meant that Blair government had few political constraints in implementing a policy of free movement in 2004. This was a privilege that would not have been offered by the political systems of many other EU-15 states, but perhaps meant that the Blair government was more shielded from any discernable political costs, which were no lesser than elsewhere.

Nonetheless, economic considerations had the greatest bearing over the Blair government’s decision to opt for a policy of free movement. Labour shortages arising from low unemployment fuelled by over a decade of sustained economic growth meant that the competition for jobs between A8 nationals and UK residents was likely to be less of a problem than in other EU-15 labour markets. But whereas most EU-15 governments saw free movement as having a potentially adverse economic impact, the Blair government justified its position in terms of the benefits that could be delivered.

When announcing the Blair government’s intention to allow A8 nationals to work freely in December 2002, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said such a move was “in the UK’s interest” because it would “attract workers we need in key sectors”(2). By contrast, the language used by leaders of the EU-15 states that imposed restrictions was often couched in terms of the potential costs that would otherwise be imposed on their more protectively regulated labour markets. For instance, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said that domestic labour markets, particularly those in areas bordering the accession states, would not be able to accommodate a large inflow of workers (3).

This contrast was also evident in the way that interest groups and the broader community responded to the prospect of free movement. While business groups and trade unions were hostile to such a position in states such as Germany and Austria, in the UK these groups were supportive. And although public opinion and press coverage towards immigration was similarly ambivalent in the UK and Germany, concerns about labour market impact were more apparent in the latter (4).

This was not simply a question of job vacancies and unemployment; there are also structural explanations for why free movement was a more appealing prospect in the UK than elsewhere. Rates of unemployment and/or labour market inactivity were in fact lower in a number of other EU-15 states that adopted restrictive policies – such as Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – than in the UK (5). But the more flexible nature of the UK labour market meant that it was better placed to absorb more workers without an accompanying increase in unemployment (6).

Despite both adopting open labour market policies with similarly low levels of unemployment, over 200,000 A8 nationals came to work in the UK each year following enlargement, compared with only around 5,000 to Sweden (7). While strong demand for labour in the UK was one reason for these disparities (8), weaker labour market regulation enabled employers to hire migrant workers on relatively lower wages and conditions, particularly compared with Sweden, where much stronger regulation afforded no such scope (9).

Moreover, various ‘system effects’ of the UK’s economic institutions had eroded the capacity of the government and employers to respond to labour shortages through orthodox strategies such as increasing wages, investing in labour-saving technology or training resident workers. As Anderson and Ruhs have argued, the self-reinforcing nature of the UK’s lightly regulated labour markets meant that many employers have been ‘unable or unwilling to train’ new staff, in part due to ‘a fear of poaching, the rise of self-employment and the consequent importance attached to on-the-job training and learning by doing’(10).

The decision of EU-15 states that imposed barriers to A8 nationals in the form of restrictions or quotas can perhaps therefore be interpreted as protectionist measures consistent with the regulatory characteristics of their labour markets, whereas the UK’s liberal stance was compatible with its more laissez-faire approach to market regulation. But why then did the UK opt to restrict free movement to A2 workers when the EU further expanded in 2007? Essentially because this time around, the Blair government saw the potential political costs as being greater than the economic benefits that it expected to garner.

Before the 2004 enlargement, the government had commissioned a report to predict the likely size of the migration flows from the A8 states. The authors of the report estimated, that between 5,000 and 13,000 people would arrive per year, but strongly warned that because of a ‘lack of good data’, there was, ‘a large potential error’ in their analysis (11). Nonetheless, these estimations gained much media attention, and indeed turned out to be rather inaccurate. The underestimation made the Blair government much more cautious about free movement for Bulgarians and Romanians.

Opposition was more widespread and vocal to the prospect of free movement than it had been in 2004, and although the institutional capacity of the government to override this opposition was no weaker, the economic benefits were less obvious than they had been three years earlier. The Blair government saw the economic impact of A8 workers as positive and a reason to consider continuing a policy of free movement. But it believed that changes in the UK economy, and different attributes of Bulgarian and Romanian workers, meant that the economic case for opening the labour market once again was less compelling.

Ultimately, the response of the UK and other EU-15 governments shows the complex and often entangled considerations that inform labour immigration policy-making. While such decisions invariably involve balancing anticipated economic and political benefits and costs, these benefits and costs are more apparent in some circumstances than others.

Notes:
(1) Kvist, Jon (2004) ‘Does EU enlargement start a race to the bottom? Strategic interaction among EU member states in social policy’, Journal of European Social Policy, 14(3): 301-318
(2) Quoted in The Independent (2002) Castle, Stephen, ‘UK lifts bar on workers from new EU countries’, 11 December: 12
(3) Jileva, Elena (2002) ‘Visa and free movement of labour: The uneven imposition of the EU acquis on the accession states’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(4): 694
(4) Boswell, Christina, Chou, Meng-Hsuan and Smith, Julie (2005) Reconciling Demand for Labour Migration with Public Concerns about Immigration: Germany and the United Kingdom, Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society: London, 27
(5) OECD (2005) Employment Outlook, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, 237-239
(6) Somerville, Will and Sumption, Madeleine (2009a) Immigration and the labour market: Theory, evidence and policy, Equality and Human Rights Commission/Migration Policy Institute, available at: www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Immigration-and-the-Labour-Market.pdf, 13
(7) Drew, Catherine and Sriskandarajah, Dhananjayan (2007) ‘EU enlargement in 2007: No warm welcome for labor migrants’, Migration Information Source, 1 January, available at: www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=568
(8) Krings, Torben (2009) ‘A race to the bottom? Trade unions, EU enlargement and the free movement of labour’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 15(1): 54
(9) Ruhs, Martin (2007) ‘Greasing the wheels of the flexible labour market: East Central European labour immigration in the United Kingdom’, in Smith-Bozek, Jen (ed) Labour Mobility in the European Union: New Members, New Challenges, Center for European Policy Analysis: Washington DC, 24
(10) Anderson, Bridget and Ruhs, Martin (2008) A need for migrant labour? The micro-level determinants of staff shortages and implications for a skills based immigration policy, Paper prepared for the Migration Advisory Committee, September, available at: www.ukba.home office.gov.uk/mac, 38-42
(11) Dustmann, Christian, Casanova, Maria, Fertig, Michael, Preston, Ian and Schmidt, Christop M. (2003) The impact of EU enlargement of migration flows, Home Office Online Report 25/03, available at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr2503.pdf, 58

Read more on The complicated politics of free movement

Observations about the administration of EU Structural Funds (in CEE)

By Lucia Kurekova

The experience of several old(er) EU member states shows that the EU structural funds are an important developmental tool for the less developed parts of Europe. In relation to the administration of the EU funds, Slovakia has recently been dealing with the so called ‘notice board tender’ (nastenkovy tender) which is an appalling case of the fraud of EU structural funds along party cronyism lines connected to the Ministry of Development and Construction and the Slovak National Party. The scandal broke out in full speed already last October but it was not until Brussels blew the whistle loud enough, threatening to stop the flow of the EU funds to the country, that some political accountability and redress were taken. What is interesting about the notice board case is the fact that the irregularities were pointed out very early on by a member of the Monitoring Committee for the Operational Program Technical Assistance 2007-2013 in the framework of which the tender took place. Rather than discussing the controversiality of the politics of the above developments, I would like to talk about Monitoring Committees which is a mechanism that allows scrutinizing the ways of EU funds allocation, but due to various reasons is not used to its fullest potential.

Monitoring Committees (MCs) are organs that exist alongside each Operational Program (OP) in every EU member state. The existence of MCs is stipulated by the Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 which defines basis principles on which it should be organized. However, an individual Ministry that runs the OP and to that related MC (Managing Authority) has much discretion in respect to the composition of the MC, the execution of its roles and the level of internal democracy. Because the MC is required to have members from local and regional governments but also representatives from the civic sector, one of important potential side-effects of the MC lies in the establishment of partnership principle. The general idea behind the work of the MCs, however, is to create national-level mechanism of accountability and control over the management and distribution of EU structural funds. The MCs usually meet several times a year. The minutes from the meetings are normally available publicly on the web pages of particular OPs. In the case of ‘notice board’ scandal, the minutes from June 2008 provide evidence of how a representative of the NGO sector in the MC demanded more information about the tender and was silenced by the Chair.

As part of a research project conducted at CEU, I had a chance to inquire into how a particular MC which distributes finances from the European Social Fund in Slovakia functions and I would like to share with you a set of general findings. The research revealed that the perceptions about the functions of the MC and understanding of what ‘monitoring’ means differ widely among the members of that MC. It was interesting to discover that the members seem to have internalized some of the not necessarily transparent aspects of how the MC functioned, which included non-accessibility of the minutes from their meetings to public. Generally, the members were not in favor of revealing what the problems and deficiencies in the administration of the ESF were to the wider public, justifying their stand on the grounds of disinterest on the part of the public and/or incapability to understand complex processes of EU funds administration. For most of them, efficiency (allocating as much funds as possible) seemed to be more important than transparency. Surprisingly, however, this relative stealth co-existed with a great degree of internal critique in respect to the Managing Authority from the non-governmental side but also from the other ministries that were members of the MC.

For the non-governmental members, the presence in the MC has proven crucial in lobbying for the interests of the groups of society they were representing and for most of them, unfortunately, that is how far their input into the monitoring part went. Interestingly, some members pointed out that the rate of activity and substantive input of the representatives from non-governmental sector has decreased with time and is generally much lower in the second programming period than it was in the first one (2004-2006). Nevertheless, part of the NGO sector took their potential effect in MCs seriously and proactively addressed the government when the MCs for the new programming periods were being created. The government responded in a very lukewarm fashion to the proposals of NGO sector for independent nominations to the MC and in several cases the ministries selected members of (marginal) NGOs with favorable leaning towards the current Slovak government, proactively ‘preventing’ problems that might arise by too active scrutiny from the more critically tuned NGOs.

In sum, it seems that while the MCs have the potential to be a tool of effective control over the administration of the EU funds and to connect different levels of the society, it is not fully utilized towards making the EU funds work better, with greater transparency and more efficiently. It seems that in this instance clearer and more specific guidelines on the part of the EU regulation in respect to the rules of the composition of Monitoring Committees could actually serve well. Making Monitoring Committees real watchdogs over accountability, control and dialogue leading to greater efficiency and transparency should therefore become a real effort.

Read more on Observations about the administration of EU Structural Funds (in CEE)

Philosophy, hope and crisis

by Lucia Kurekova

If you felt some disillusionment or even depresion after reading a recent post in The Economist about the world economic crisis dubbed "A glimmer of hope", perhaps you will find appealing (or even inspiring) the opinion piece by Alain de Botton in the last week Financial Times issue in which he tells us what we can adopt from the Roman Stoic philosophy and Christianity when dealing with crisis. Enjoy both.

Read more on Philosophy, hope and crisis