05/09/2011: Euro area governance indicators: evolution or decline?

In recent years, the EU has embarked on a set of institutional reforms and unveiled a number of institutional platforms for reforming the core principles of governance, transparency and accountability. These reforms are rooted in 2000-2005 processes that accompanied direct evolution of the Euro area and the EU enlargement.

In this light, it would be instructive to take a closer look at the dynamics of EU governance evolution, focusing on the specifically more integrated group of countries – the Euro area. Using data from the World Bank Governance Indicators for 1996-2009 (latest available) we can draw some interesting conclusions on the topic.

Before we begin, however, note that WB data is lagged in some cases up to 2 years. In addition, many variables are "sticky" - in a sense that they do not change dramatically year on year as institutional reforms take time to feed through to actual delivery on metrics. Hence, the period from 1996 through 2002 is really covering a period of data closer to 1985 through 2001, on average. Thus, I separate the data into 2 periods: the period prior to the Euro area creation (1996-2002) and post Euro area creation (2003-2009). In addition, note the following two facts: that help support this division:

1. I tested the results for the period split 1996-2001 against 2002-2009, for split 1996-2000 vs 2001-2009 and for split 1996-2003 vs 2004-2009. All came back with very similar, qualitatively, results.
2. A number of Euro area states were in a mode of EU accession prior to 2004, thus splitting the sample at 2002-2003 makes some logical sense to capture better the average effects of governance reforms coincident with the euro period.

Now to the results: charts below plot changes across two periods for the countries members of the euro area, plus euro area as whole (simple average), the new accession states and the old (core) euro area member states. The plots capture all 6 core components of the World Bank Governance Indicators in terms of change in each indicator score (higher score implies better ranking in the league tables).

So to summarize - a table

What the above clearly shows is that Governance scores improvements across the euro area were driven primarily by improvements in the Accession States. In 4 out of 6 criteria, Core euro area member states have, on average, posted deterioration in the scores. Thus, overall euro area scores improved in 3 out of 6 criteria, remained unchanged in 2 criteria and deteriorated in 1 criteria.

Pretty poor performance for the group of states that set out as their core agenda to achieve transparency, good governance, government effectiveness, etc. And even worse for the idea that more integration yields better policy outcomes. Clearly, in the case of governance at least, it does not.

25/01/2011: Just how independent is the EU's Systemic Risk Board

On January 20 there was a momentous occasion in Europe. After years of crisis, bent on preventing another financial meltdown in the future, the EU unveiled the first sitting of the new super-regulatory/supervisory body - the European Systemic Risk Board.

Here is the press release from the EU official site with emphasis and comments added by me:

"The General Board of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) held its inaugural meeting today at the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt am Main. The meeting led to a number of decisions on the set-up and functioning of the Board:
...

• Mr Marek Belka, Governor of the Narodowy Bank Polski; Mr Mario Draghi, Governor of the Banca d’Italia; Mr Athanasios Orphanides, Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus; Mr Axel Weber, President of the Deutsche Bundesbank; were elected members of the Steering Committee for three years. [Note that all members of the Steering Committee are Central Bankers, hence not independent from the ECB]
  

• Mr Stefan Ingves, Governor of the Sveriges Riksbank was elected Chair of the Advisory Technical Committee for three years. [Again the above comment applies]

The ESRB is an independent EU body responsible for the macro-prudential oversight of the financial system within the Union. The ESRB is located in Frankfurt am Main and its Secretariat is provided by the European Central Bank.

The Chair of the ESRB is the President of the European Central Bank, Mr Jean-Claude Trichet. The first Vice-Chair of the ESRB is Mr Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England. He was elected by the members of the General Council of the ECB on 16 December 2010 for five years. The second Vice-Chair of the ESRB will be the Chair of the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities.

The General Board consists of the following members with voting rights: the President and the Vice-President of the European Central Bank (ECB); the Governors of the national central banks of the EU Member States; one member of the European Commission; the Chairperson of the European Banking Authority (EBA); the Chairperson of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA); the Chairperson of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA); the Chair and the two Vice-Chairs of the Advisory Scientific Committee (ASC); the Chair of the Advisory Technical Committee (ATC). The following members have no voting rights: one high-level representative per Member State of the competent national supervisory authorities; and the President of the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC)." (end quote)

So in a summary: the ESRB is composed of:

• National CBs and supervisory authorities (subject to ECB control)
• ECB members
• EU Commission representatives
• EU industry quangoes

And this is called 'independent'?

Hush-Hush & Sweep it under the Rug: EU's latest 'transparency' move

Last week EUObserver reported an interesting story (here) about the EU Commission efforts to keep transparency at bay.

Per EUObserver report: "New rules on public access to EU documents have prompted one of the European Commission's key departments to circulate a memo warning officials to be careful about what they write in emails and advising them on how to narrowly interpret requests for information. The 15-page handbook was circulated in January to officials working in the commission directorate for trade, one of the EU's most important policy areas affecting millions of people both within and beyond the bloc.

"Each official must be aware that all his/her documents, including meeting reports and e-mails can potentially be disclosed. You should keep this in mind when writing such documents. This is particularly the case for meeting reports and emails with third parties (e.g. industry)," reads the memo.

It asks officials... to avoid making references to informal contacts, such as meals or drinks, with lobbyists. "Don't refer to the great lunch you have had with an industry representative privately or add a PS asking if he/she would like to meet for a drink." [Hold it, folks - wouldn't such a PS qualify as a solicitation of a payoff in the first place?] The document also tips off officials on how to narrow down the interpretation of a request for information. It points to a past example where a request referred to DG trade meetings with individual companies, meaning the department could avoid making public its contacts with business lobbyists."

Well, there is more the EUObserver report worth reading, but what is absolutely clear is that the EU Commission has absolutely no interest in following the spirit of the disclosure rules, preferring instead to bend the rule-book in order to conceal the extent, nature and effectiveness of lobbyists, as well as to cover up its own governance practices.

Of course, one solution to this problem is to make all information concerning EU public - including the so-called commercially-sensitive one. Taxpayers must be allowed to know who was bidding on which projects, how these bids were evaluated and judged and how the bidding companies spent their lobbying money. This will include a transparent and complete list of lobbying organizations, bureaucrats diaries and other information that can assist us, the taxpayers, in determining who dined with whom, when, why and at whose expense.

In fact, they should also be required to post the actual bills paid - in my humble opinion, if MEPs claim expenses on things like meals and entertainment, I would like to know how many lobsters were eaten in Brussels on the back of my taxes... wouldn't you?

And let's apply the same principles to our local politicians and officials...