Connect with us

Economy

Fair Trade – an alternative made to Aid and Free Trade?

Published

on

“Trade not Aid”: this used to be the slogan of third-worldist movements in the mid-1960s, an epoch when intellectual figures in the Third World were denouncing the unequal exchange between the capitalist Center and the Periphery.

The aim was then to challenge the capitalist system at its very basis. Forty years later, in a global neoliberal context, it seems that the issue of unequal exchange has resurfaced through the Fair Trade movement, a movement which purports to help the poorest and most marginalized producers of the global South. Based on the perceived failures of aid and free trade paradigms, the Fair Trade protagonists count on the generosity and solidarity of Northern consumers in order to achieve fairer trade relationships between the North and the South.

The Fair Trade movement is not monolithic however. There are at least two conflicting visions inside the movement. First, there is “historical” or “alternative” Fair Trade. In this approach, economic intermediaries are specialised in the distribution and/or sale of ‘Fair’ products – agricultural products or handicrafts – which are purchased from producers in the South by specialised group purchasing organisations in order to be sold in dedicated shops in the North. The rationale here is to create alternative trade channels operating outside standard distribution networks and where agrifood giants are excluded. At the global level, the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) federates specialised/alternative Fair Trade organisations.

Since the 1980s, another approach, the labelling one, has progressively imposed itself. It is epitomized by the Max Havelaar/Fairtrade label. Unlike the previous approach that certifies “organisations”, the labelling approach only certifies “products”. As there is no requirement to be ‘100 per cent fair-trade specialised’ in order to obtain a licence for the sale or distribution of Fair Trade products, the sale/distribution of certified products is in theory available to all corporations, provided that they comply with specific standards and pay their annual licence fees to the label holder (namely the national labelling initiative). As a result, the classical sale and distribution channels can be more easily integrated.

In this approach, producer organisations in the South that wish to sell their products under Fair Trade conditions must first of all obtain certification, which is subject to complying with the standards

defined in this respect by the certification organisation. It is also important to point out that the label holder does not buy or sell any product. It rather trades the use of the said label. At the international level, Fairtrade International is the federating entity whose mission is to promote the Fair Trade label. Created in 1997, Fairtrade International is based in Bonn, Germany.

The evolution of the Fair Trade movement from an “alternative” approach to a “product certification” approach has sparked many debates. The Max Havelaar/Fairtrade approach has often been accused of having betrayed the original mission of the Fair Trade movement. By working with agrifood giants and standard distribution channels, evolution that has helped boost his sales to unprecedented levels (4.9 billion euros in 2011), it would provide an opportunity of “greenwashing” for these controversial actors.

I will not follow this line of argumentation here. Rather, I will try to defend the idea that the Max Havelaaar/Fairtrade approach (abbreviated by FT), as it is currently conceived and as it currently works, is an alternative neither to aid nor to free trade. In some ways, as we will see, it tends to reproduce their shortcomings.

I – The Fair Trade economic model in theory

Developing countries producers face generally three kinds of interrelated issues in conventional markets: the price of their product are often very volatile; the price they receive for their products tend to be low, sometimes below the cost of production, and non-sustainable ecologically and humanely; due to the influence of middlemen and inequalities of power, their share of the added value created in agricultural value chains tend to be low, even in the circumstances when the price of their products is booming.

To address the issue of price volatility, the FT economic model sets for each product a guaranteed minimum price. The second issue is addressed by making sure that the guaranteed minimum price covers the cost of a “sustainable production” (that is a production which is environment-friendly and which is associated with decent working conditions for producers) and by the payment of an additional premium (which amounts to a pre-defined fraction of the FT volume sold by each producer organisation). As for the exploitation of producers by “unfair” middlemen, the issue is supposed to be tackled by the certification process (only buyers complying with FT standards are able to enter FT value chains).

The crucial element of the FT economic model is however the availability of “ethical consumers” from the North who are ready to pay a higher price for products labelled FT. This element of solidarity forms the basis without which the model is simply impracticable. The growth of FT markets is ultimately dependent on the growth of the population of “ethical consumers”. Hence the strong need for the FT movement to have recourse to awareness and marketing campaigns.

This is in a nutshell the logic, or the spirit, of the FT economic model.

Though the rhetoric of FT activists might sound progressive and opposed to free trade, as a matter of fact, the FT economic model obeys in practice to a neoliberal logic. I must add that this unexpected and unfortunate outcome derives from the premises of the FT economic model itself.

II – Some limitations of the FT economic model

For the FT economic model to be efficient and to be considered as a superior alternative to free trade, it has at least to provide to producer organisations better outcomes in terms of prices and market access compared to conventional international trade. However, owing to the way in which it has been conceived, there is no guarantee a priori that producers involved in the FT movement should be better-off than conventional producers, or at least that the FT economic model can help stabilise or improve the revenues of FT producers.  

First, there are limits to the “generosity” of the FT minimum price. If it is too high relative to standard price observed in conventional markets, there is the risk that consumers will be discouraged to buy FT products. However, if the FT minimum price is not generous enough, it will probably not have a significant effect on poverty. In other words, there is a trade-off to be made between the need to ensure the growth of FT markets and the need for the FT movement to have a significant economic impact for the producer organisations involved. Given the high level of competition in the field of “ethical consumption” (with the proliferation of “ethical labels” with varying standards), there is a growing tendency in the FT movement to privilege FT sales growth, tendency which implies to lower standards and to align FT prices more closely to conventional market prices.

Second, contrary to a popular belief, the disposal of a FT label does not guarantee producer organisations that they will be able to sell all of their FT production at FT conditions. Labelling initiatives can just simply define the rules of the game for FT markets (certification, minimum price,

pre-financing, traceability, etc.) and try to ensure that standards are enforced. They cannot guarantee that each producer organisation involved in the movement will have access to FT markets. They cannot guarantee either that buyers involved in the movement will pay a price higher to FT minimum price. In other words, as in conventional markets, market access and prices are also determined on a competitive basis in the FT value chains. Free trade logic takes place once FT rules and standards are accepted by the different protagonists in the FT value chains. As underscored by one author: “Fair Trade does not pose any challenge to the free market system; rather it is a part of that system that increases the welfare of a target group through a speciality market” (Mohan, 2010: 45/6).

Following this free trade logic, it is not a surprise that FT producer organisations are generally recruited not from the most marginalized but from the better-off among them. Producer organisations that have some “social capital” and some international ties are those that are more likely to enter the FT value chains.

“Over-certification” is the other unfortunate implication of this free trade logic. “Over-certification” means that some FT production (production obtained by following FT standards) had not been sold according to FT conditions. According to estimates from F air t r a d e I n t e r n a tio n al (FLO), over- certification concerns on average 30 per cent of the volume produced by producer organisations and up to 70 per cent in the case of “hired-labour” (that is plantation wage workers) organisations. Note however that some case studies tend to report higher over-certification rates. Whatever the case, one scenario must be borne in mind: as FT producer organisations tend to have higher costs on average, they might incur huge losses in the case where their “over-certified” production is sold on conventional markets at prices below their costs.

These limitations regarding price-setting mechanisms and market access explain why the local impact of the FT movement is generally mixed. In some circumstances, involvement in Fair Trade has proved beneficial for producer organisations. In other circumstances, this had not been the case.

III – The global impact of FT

If the evidence regarding the local impact of the FT label tends to be mixed, it is all but unambiguous regarding its global impact. It is at this latter level of evaluation that the shortcomings of the FT economy are more apparent. We must say that if Fair trade has been a huge marketing success (revealed by the important sales growth rates recorded until now), it remains until now a very insignificant part of the world trade system.

As an alternative economic model which aims to supersede aid and free trade, the FT approach tends to generate low average revenues for producer organisations involved in it. In 2008, the gross average revenues that accrued to producer organisations amounted to 74 Euros annually per worker. This figure which represents 16 per cent of the average GDP per capita of the Least Developed Countries in 2008 is not measured net , i.e. costs are not deducted.

As a transfer mechanism, the FT economic model seems also to lack efficiency. To take the case of the United States, for each dollar paid by “ethical consumers” to buy a FT coffee product, only 0.03 dollars are actually transferred to producer organisations. This low rate of transfer is illustrative of the fact that the surplus paid by consumers is appropriated by intermediaries, including the labelling initiatives.

If the FT economic model is supposed in principle to benefit producers in the poorest countries, in actual practice, the FT movement targets more those in the richest developing countries. The Least Developed Countries are for example underrepresented among FT producer organisations (13 per cent of the total). This outcome derives from the bias associated with the FT certification model. To be involved in the FT value chains, producer organisations have to pay for the certification (which is to be renewed annually). Given that the certification process is relatively costly, this tends to favour producers in countries with a higher level of development. There is also the fact that the offer of certification by labelling initiatives is biased towards products exported by Latin America countries (coffee and bananas for example), a region which is on average richer than Africa and developing regions in Asia.

Besides excluding producers in the poorest countries, the FT movement tends also to marginalise the countries which are the most dependent of the revenues obtained from the exports of primary products. To illustrate this, let’s take for example the case of coffee, the FT flagship product. Ethiopia and Burundi are the two countries most dependent in the world on coffee revenues which account respectively for 34 and 26 per cent of their export revenues. Until 2009, there were only three FT coffee certifications in Ethiopia and none in Burundi. Paradoxically, Mexico and Peru which are not dependent at all on coffee exports (less than two per cent of their export revenues) accounted for 31 per cent of the total FT coffee certifications, that is a share superior to those of Latin America countries like Honduras and Nicaragua which are much more dependent on coffee exports. For products like bananas and cocoa, the same pattern can be observed. In these different cases, the geography of trade flows obeys the classic determinants of conventional trade flows: development level and distance. American buyers of FT products will prefer to buy FT coffee in Mexico at lower costs than to travel until Burundi just to make the world trade exchanges “fairer”!

Conclusion

Despite the generous intentions of its protagonists, the FT economic model is not in practice an alternative to aid and free trade. It tends rather to reproduce their deficiencies, those of free trade notably. If the FT label has been more successful than previous attempts (“historical” Fair Trade) in terms of sales, it owes that performance to its association with standard distribution networks and the giants of the agrifood business, i.e. the same actors who are considered by many as responsible for a non-negligible part for the “unfairness” of the international trade system. Looking at its global socioeconomic impact, the limits of the FT economic model are certainly illustrated by the way in which it marginalises the poorest producers and the most dependent countries as well as it low average returns.

However, the most important criticism that can be levelled at the FT movement is that it does not challenge the current structure of the international trade system. Its acceptance of the current global division of labour is a serious impediment to the achievement of fairer distributional outcomes. For producer organisations in developing countries are not poor because they receive low prices. The fundamental reason is that they are trapped in low-productivity economic activities. Unless developing countries change their economic specialisation, by starting to process locally their own primary products, it will be in vain to expect a strong economic development. Centuries of history within the capitalist global system show that specialisation in the exports of primary products is not conducive to economic development. That lesson is still to be learnt by the FT movement.

The current challenge is not to adapt to the current neoliberal order (what the FT movement does) but to transform it. This radical idea of “alternative” Fair Trade remains relevant more than ever. Its practicability will no doubt necessitate stronger mechanisms of international solidarity between peoples.

References

Mohan, Sushil (2010) Fairtrade without the Froth: A Dispassionate Economic Analysis of ‘Fair Trade’ (London: Institute of Economic Affairs).

Sylla, Ndongo Samba (2014)

The Fair Trade Scandal. Marketing Poverty to Benefit the Rich (Pluto

Press; Ohio University Press).

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

Success of G-20 Summit 2018

Published

on

G-20 Summit 2018, was termed as successful and hope for better world order. In fact, recently the tension between US and China & Russia was growing and world peace and stability was at stake. Since January 2018, when President Trump, addressed house of union, expressed anti-China and Russia sentiments. Later on imposition of traffic on Chinese products and several other action were aimed to curtail China’s growth countering Russian threats. APEC summit at Papua New Guinea has also given negative signals. Under this scenario, whole world has focused on the out-come of G-20 Summit 2018, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on 30 November-1 December 2018.

Chinese wisdom brought fruits finally, as a result of meeting between President Trump and President Xi, in Buenos Aires on 1 December 2018, where US president agreed to not to put additional tariffs on Chinese goods.  Since beginning of 2018, starting from the President Trump’s address to state of Union, anti-China sentiments were very much obvious. Putting tariff to Chinese goods by US Dollars 200 Billion, APEC summit at Papua New Guinea etc were the moments of worry for not only China but also for the whole world.

As, US is the largest and China as second largest economy of the World. These two economies were dominating the global economy. Any disturbance to US or Chinese economy may disturb the whole world’s economy and destabilize world trade. Any such chaos may lead to political instability globally. There were clouds of destabilization due to ongoing Trade War between the two big economies and all other nations were worried about the future of their own economies.

China is an ancient civilization and has passed many ups and downs throughout the history and have become much matured nation. Chinese policy of “Peace and Development” is beauty of its century old wisdom. By nature, Chinese people wanted a smooth and frictionless society. Since the beginning of confrontation or trade war, Chinese side observed patience and always struggling to find a solution by talk or negotiation. Even China was not eager to impose any tariff on US goods, but lately reciprocated as a last option.

President Xi’s speech at summit was very comprehensive and very clear spelling out the responsibilities and consequences of any destabilization of global economy. He urged that on trade issues, the world should firstly stick to openness and free trade, maintain and further expand an open market, and realize win-win cooperation through mutual exchanges and complementarity. China is stick to opening its doors to rest of world and believe in globalization and follow the WTO as guidelines. Secondly, G20 should stick to inclusiveness, and bring the benefits of international trade and economic globalization to people of all countries and all classes, including the under developed, developing nations and especially the poor states. Thirdly, G20 should uphold rules-oriented spirit and nurture a stable and expectable institutional environment for the healthy development of international trade.

President Trump was also positive and cooperative. Finally China and the United States have agreed to halt additional tariffs as both countries engage in new trade negotiations with the goal of reaching an agreement within 90 days. The breakthrough came after a dinner meeting between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Trump agreed not to boost tariffs on $200bn of Chinese goods to 25 percent on January 1 as previously announced, while Beijing agreed to buy an unspecified but “very substantial” amount of agricultural, energy, industrial and other products, the White House said in a statement.

Overall, G-20 final communique said the members reaffirm ‘commitment to further strengthening the global financial safety net with a strong, quota-based, and adequately resourced IMF at its centre’. Further added that international trade and investment are important engines of growth, productivity, innovation, job creation and development. Also note on current trade issues, reaffirms pledge to use all policy tools to achieve strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth. The communique said the group will safeguard against downside risks, by stepping up our dialogue and actions to enhance confidence.

Overall the Summit was termed as a very successful one and hopes for stability in the global economy is obvious. Especially the developing countries and poor economies felt sigh a relief. Pakistan is also passing through its worst hit era of economic crisis and was struggling to revive its ill-economy. As the international environment may improve and there may exist a space for Pakistan to play smartly and re-gain its position in the global economies. Although, Pakistan possess a huge potential for rapid growth, because of its natural edge over its rich agriculture and tremendous natural resources in the form of Minerals and mines. Pakistan work force is also a positive factor with 70% of its population under the age of 40, are well qualified. The hindrance is only, corruption, nepotism and poor management. It is responsibility of Government to introduce reforms, friendly incentive based policies, and strict-merit based implementation.

It is believed that China-Pakistan economic Corridor (CPEC) will also prosper and will achieve its desired results. The cooperation between China and Pakistan will grow further in all walk of life and benefits the common people of both sides.

Continue Reading

Economy

The Myth of Capitalism-Book Review

Published

on

Many people have labeled communism as but a myth: an unattainable fantasy.  Jonathan Tepper and Denise Hearn (T&H) have, by contrast, written a new book called The myth of capitalism: Monopolies and the death of competition.  It contains a series of liberal and conservative critiques of the economic system of the US in particular and the West more generally.

T&H chronicle the decline of competitiveness in almost every sector of the US economy.  Most people in the mainstream media are drooling over the record highs being recorded on the stock market, but the book notes,  “Between 1996-2016, the number of stocks in the US fell by roughly 50%, from more than 7300 to fewer than 3600, while rising 50% in other developed nations.”  As T&H painstakingly explain by citing studies and charts, the US economy has been stagnant by most truly relevant metrics since the Reaganomics of the 1980s, such as R&D spending, company longevity, competitive consumer product prices and the number of annual startups.

The superficiality of the recent Wall St gains is enabled via trickery such as stock buybacks, oligopolistic mergers & lobbyist-sponsored deregulation and tax exemptions.  Such corruption used to be illegal, in pre- Reagan and Buckley v. Valeo America.  Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt both cracked down on monopolies like Standard Oil and the New York Central Railroad by enforcing the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts.  Every president since Teddy, both Democrat and Republican, cracked down on potential monopolies until Reagan.  This helped prevent a market crash akin to those of 1907 and 1929, which were the direct result of laissez-faire capitalism.

Wide-scale mergers started occurring during the Reagan Administration and have only picked up steam ever since. Concerning our last president, T&H note that, “Obama talked tough on big business and Wall Street, but he raised as much money from them as possible and was arguably even more pro-merger than Bush.  His DOJ approved all the airline mergers, creating an oligopoly of four airlines… He allowed Google’s major acquisitions that vertically integrated parts of the ad industry… The FTC prevented Comcast from buying Time Warner in 2015 and AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile in 2011.  These were the only notable mergers Obama’s DOJ blocked.”

The book lists all of the industries that have effectively become oligopolies or even monopolies: search engines, beer, beverages, glasses, weapons, banks, telecommunications, social media, cell phone manufacturing, agriculture, airlines, pharmaceuticals, credit rating, tobacco, railroads, etc.  The consolidation of market share to a handful of billion-dollar companies has throttled the entry of new companies in our so-called Age of the Startup.  T&H write how Facebook has (after buying out Instagram) been able to devastate upstart platform Snapchat by mimicking all of Snapchat’s features.  Such treachery, combined with Facebook’s 2B+ user base, ensured Snapchat would end up in the financial spiral that’s it’s currently in.   This is but one example of how the post-merger era has sabotaged fresh competition.  The book relays this sobering stat: “In 1995, the top 100 companies accounted for 53% of all income from publicly traded firms, but by 2015, they captured a whopping 84% of all profits.”  After decades of decline, the number of new firm entries fell below the number of firm exits in 2013.  This decline in the number of startup innovators inevitably ends up hurting technological innovations.

The merger bonanza may be great for Wall St, but it’s horrible for Middle America.  For instance, T&H write, “When workers have fewer employers to choose from in their line of work, their bargaining power disappears.  Corporate giants can squeeze their suppliers, but the main thing companies buy is labor, and they have been squeezing workers.”  Thus, wages have struggled to keep up with inflation for decades.  Benefits are cut, while stock buybacks soar.  Unhappy workers in all but 3 states can be shackled to soul-sucking jobs via non-compete clauses.  Furthermore, “56% of private sector non-unionized workers are forced into mandatory arbitration and of those, 23% were also denied any access to class-action lawsuits. This means that nearly a quarter of working Americans in the private sector don’t have the basic right to sue their employer.”

Mergers aren’t good for consumers either, despite what the corporatist rhetoric will tell you.  T&Hgive countless examples of how industries became less innovative after drinking the Oligopoly Kool-Aid.  The lack of competition this environment leads to complacency and, thus, a lack of product innovation or even concern for customer service.  The book also reports that, “in mergers that led to 6 or fewer significant competitors, prices rose in nearly 95% of cases… On average, post-merger prices increased 4.3%.”  Industries from beer to pharmaceuticals are infamous for fixing prices, due to high barriers of entry for startups and tacit (and sometimes explicit) collusion.  According to the book’s data, the average specialty pharmaceutical medication cost jumped 217% from 2011-2015.  Unsurprising, when you consider that, “In 2017, drug makers paid for 882 lobbyists and spent more than $171.5M in an effort to oppose lower prescription drug prices.”

Ironically, lobbyists will argue that mergers lead to lower prices and greater innovation.  They make the dishonest argument that the goal of the antitrust acts was solely to help consumers.  In fact, the legislation never even mentioned consumer efficiency; the bills were all about breaking up the power of the trusts.  People like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson saw how monopolies exceeded government authority in many cases; a lack of government enforcement of industry ultimately led to the Great Depression and the resulting New Deal reformations.

In the era of the Too-Big-to-Fail banks and corporations, the lessons of The myth of capitalism are more important than ever. They expose the façade of the post-recession “economic recovery” for what it is: stock buybacks and mergers puffing up the economy.  Everyone and everything from workers, consumers, people with medical conditions, startups and the IRS suffer from the corruption of American capitalism.  Tepper and Hearn frame their central thesis with liberal ideals and arguments (protecting the consumer, income inequality, maintaining government independence from corporate influence), as well as conservative (market competitiveness, cutting red tape for small business, low consumer prices).  A lot is written about the thoughts of Hayek and Friedman, but also leftists like FDR and Marx.  The final chapter offers some solutions to the problems of our times, but they’re pretty predictable if you’ve been reading along the whole way.  Page after page of charts succinctly illustrate the points T&H make about trust-busting, the corrosiveness of the lobbyist class, the benefits of competitive markets, and livings standards for people on Main Street.  The myth of capitalism is a very readable, even-handed and informative primer for anyone questioning whether or not they’re being gas lighted by the nonstop barrage of praise for the economy by the oligopolistic mainstream media.

Continue Reading

Economy

The Single Market: Europe’s best asset in a changing world

MD Staff

Published

on

European Commission presents a fresh assessment of the situation in the Single Market and calls on Member States to renew their political commitment to the Single Market.

Over the last 25 years, the Single Market has made Europe one of the most attractive places to live and to do business. Its four indivisible freedoms – the free movement of people, goods, services and capital – have helped improve our citizens’ prosperity and strengthen the EU’s competitiveness. To exploit its full potential in the digital era and ensure sustainable growth of our economy, the Single Market needs to function properly and constantly evolve in a rapidly changing world. However, today, deeper integration requires more political courage and commitment than 25 years ago and greater efforts to close the gap between rhetoric and delivery.

Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President in charge of Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness, said: “Six months before the European elections, it is worth reminding Europeans about how the Single Market improves our daily lives and provides a unique springboard for our companies to innovate and expand their activities across borders. And to those tempted to draw up new barriers, let’s consider the bigger picture: in a world where multilateralism is being challenged, and where Europe’s competitors are growing faster both in terms of GDP and population, the Single Market is a unique asset to preserve and boost our continent’s standing, values and influence in the world.”

Elżbieta Bieńkowska, Commissioner for the Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, added: “The Single Market means freedom, opportunity and prosperity. But for people, services, products and capital to circulate freely – physically or online – we need everybody in the EU to play by the commonly agreed rules. We need effective and consistent enforcement. And just as we are resisting protectionism outside the EU, we should resist fragmentation inside the EU. We need to continuously uphold our Single Market to preserve our best asset for future generations.”

The Commission highlights three main areas where further efforts are needed to deepen and strengthen the Single Market:

Swiftly adopt proposals on table: The Commission has presented 67 proposals directly relevant for the proper functioning of the Single Market, 44 of which remain to be agreed. The Commission calls on the European Parliament and the Council to adopt the key proposals on the table before the end of this legislature. This includes relevant proposals to integrate digitisation and new technologies at the core of the Single Market, to ensure more secure and sustainable energy in Europe, and to build the Capital Markets Union (see factsheet Overview of initiatives)

Ensure the rules deliver in practice: Citizens and businesses can only enjoy the many benefits of the Single Market (see factsheet on the Single Market) if the rules that have been jointly agreed actually work on the ground. The Commission calls on Member States to be vigilant in implementing, applying and enforcing EU rules and refrain from erecting new barriers. For its part, the Commission will continue to ensure respect of EU rules across the board, from car emissions to e-commerce, from social media to the services sector, and much more besides.

Continue adapting the Single Market: Faced with growth gradually slowing down at global level and a changing geopolitical context, the EU needs to show leadership and political courage to take the Single Market to a new level. There is significant potential for further economic integration in the areas of services, products, taxation and network industries. It will make the Union even more attractive to international trading partners and provide it with additional leverage on the international stage.

With this Communication, the Commission is providing a first response to an invitation by the European Council in March to present a state of play of the Single Market and an assessment of remaining barriers and opportunities for a fully functioning Single Market. It also invites the European Council to dedicate an in-depth discussion at Leaders’ level to the Single Market in all its dimensions to identify common priorities for action and appropriate mechanisms to match the much needed new political commitment to the Single Market with concrete delivery at all levels of governance.

The Commission is today also presenting an Action Plan on standardisation, which presents four key actions to increase the system’s efficiency, transparency and legal certainty.

Removing bottlenecks to stimulate investment in the Single Market is also one of the key objectives of the Commission’s Investment Plan, also known as the Juncker Plan. This is why today’s Communication on the Single Market goes hand in hand with the Communication taking stock of what has been achieved under the Juncker Plan also published today.

Background

The Single Market allows Europeans to travel freely, study, work, live and fall in love across borders. They have a great choice of products – whether buying at home or cross-border – -and benefit from better prices as well as high standards of environmental, social and consumer protection. European businesses – small and large– can expand their customer base and exchange products and services more easily across the EU. Simply put, the Single Market is Europe’s best asset to generate growth and foster competitiveness of European companies in globalised markets.

With the Single Market Strategy, the Capital Markets Union and the Digital Single Market Strategy, the Commission has put forward an ambitious and balanced set of measures over the last four years to deepen the Single Market further and make it fairer. Several proposals have already been adopted, but the European Parliament and the Council still have to agree on 44 out of the 67 proposals set out in these strategies. The Commission has also made important and forward-looking proposals to build a Banking Union in Europe as well as strengthen the circular economy, energy, transport and climate policies which will deepen the Single Market and foster sustainable development. To ensure that the Single Market remains fair, the Commission has proposed safeguards in the fields of employment, taxation, company law and consumer protection.

For the next long-term EU budget 2021-2027, the Commission has proposed a new, dedicated €4 billion Single Market programme, to empower and protect consumers and enable Europe’s many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to take full advantage of a well-functioning Single Market.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy