Frode Veggeland

Research Professor

(+47) 922 93 167
frode.veggeland@nibio.no

Place
Oslo

Visiting address
Storgata 2-4-6, 0155 Oslo

To document

Abstract

This article studies the implementation of the European Union (EU)’s Patients’ Rights Directive in Germany and Norway. The objective of the Directive was to allow EU member states to have a say in the regulatory work, ensure predictability and uniformity in the application of EU rules on cross-border care, and enhance a move towards EU harmonisation in this area. So far, the implementation processes in Norway and Germany have mixed results regarding the likelihood of achieving uniformity and harmonisation. Although the Directive has had convergent effects on certain areas of cross-border care, such as setting up National Contact Points and providing patients with the basic right to treatment abroad, implementation also shows divergent patterns. In both countries, adapting to EU rules has strengthened patients’ rights to choose freely among health-service providers in a wider European healthservice market. However, due to legal discretion and country-specific institutions within which the new rules are applied, divergent patterns prevail.

To document

Abstract

This study analyzes TTIP, its implications for Norway and Norway’s trade policy choices. TTIP will hardly be concluded under Obama's presidency, but the agreement could become a reality within a few years. TTIP aims at comprehensive cooperation in the regulatory area. In the short term there will be limited harmonization of standards but regulatory cooperation between different systems. In the long term, the goal is stronger cooperation in the regulatory area. TTIP will from what we know not lead to a lowering of European health regulations or a "race to the bottom". If TTIP is realized and Norway remains outside, the EEA Agreement will be little affected and the overall economic impact is moderate. If Norway joins TTIP, there will be a significant real income gain, with estimates ranging from 2236 to 6772 NOK per capita in the various scenarios. There is considerable variation across sectors. With Norway outside TTIP there will be a moderate negative impact for a majority of the sectors, especially some manufacturing sectors that face tougher competition in the EU and USA export markets. The oil industry will benefit from increased demand and higher prices. If Norway joins TTIP, a clear majority of industries will benefit; especially business services and a number of other service industries. The public sector gains from TTIP, mainly due to cheaper inputs. TTIP will contribute to the dismantling of import protection for Norwegian agriculture and without compensating measures, production and employment will be reduced. TTIP will still allow some import protection and this margin of maneuver, which depends on future negotiations, is important for the outcome. With a larger margin of manoeuvre and unchanged budgetarty support, most of Norway’s agriculture can be maintained. With less margin of manoeuvre, it will be more challenging. Norwegian accession to TTIP may occur in the form of a standard trade agreement in which Norway or EFTA are formally equal to the EU and the United States. Alternatively, Norway may participate in a European pillar as in today's "Open Skies" agreement on air traffic. If TTIP succeeds in establishing comprehensive regulatory cooperation, the latter solution is most likely. Such a solution implies that Norway will become more closely integrated with the European Union also in trade policy towards third countries. Norwegian entry into TTIP implies that we have to accept the established rules and negotiate bilaterally with the EU and the USA on market access. The negotiations with the USA will apply to all aspects of market access, while negotiations with the EU will apply only to areas in which the EEA agreement is not already deeper. The negotiations with the EU for TTIP entry will thus include, among other issues, tariffs for seafood and agriculture. As an alternative to membership in TTIP, Norway or EFTA may initiate a trade agreement with the USA. Such an agreement would likely be less extensive in the regulatory area. Such an agreement will also provide an economic gain for Norway, but less than accession to TTIP. For Norway as a whole, accession to TTIP creates a real income gain between 12.5 and 35 billion NOK according to various scenarios, while a free trade agreement with the United States results in a gain of about 7.4 billion NOK. TTIP also includes negotiations on so-called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), whereby foreign-owned companies can sue a state if they are unfairly or inappropriately treated. Such rights also exist in national law but international tribunals have to some extent extended the interpretation of what is considered unfair. The European Union has proposed a solution in TTIP with a permanent court as well as rules that discipline the interpretation of the principles, and thus avoids that ISDS unduly interferes into the states’ "right to regulate". This and many other issues are analysed in this report and six background papers.

To document

Abstract

The strengthening of administrative powers is comprehensively documented within national governments. This article asks to what extent centre formation also happens within international bureaucracies. Based on a large body of data (N=121) within three international bureaucracies, this study adds two new observations: First, administrative centre formation is primarily observed inside the European Commission and only marginally within other international bureaucracies – such as the OECD and WTO Secretariats. Moreover, within the Commission, centre formation is primarily observed at the administrative centre (the General Secretariat) and only marginally within bureaucratic sub-units. Concomitantly, administrative centre formation, when observed, does not seem to profoundly penetrate and transform international bureaucracies writ large. Second, variation in centre formation both across and within international bureaucracies is associated with two often neglected variables in comparative government literature: (i) first, the accumulation of relevant organisational capacities at the executive centre, and second, the vertical and horizontal specialisation of international bureaucracies.

Abstract

This report explores how equivalence and mutual recognition have been applied by the European Union (EU) in order to facilitate trade. The EU is of particular interest in this area because it has been in the forefront internationally with regard to applying these tools, both in its internal market project and in its external trade relations. The report includes an empirical mapping of EU’s experience with applying equivalence and mutual recognition as trade facilitating tools. The aim here is to increase the understanding of how these tools can be relevant and important in a wider global context, in particular with regard to food trade. Furthermore, based on this experience some of the challenges that countries are faced with when applying these tools are highlighted thus allowing some assessments of the prospects of and difficulties in achieving trade facilitation through these means. Chapter 2 includes an account of some of the regulatory approaches that the EU has pursued in its attempts at realising an internal market, from the adoption of common rules, to mutual recognition and the «Better Regulation» programme included in the Lisbon strategy. Chapter 3 discusses EU’s rules for third-country relations. Furthermore, some of EU’s mutual recognition and equivalence agreements are explored. In addition to these, Chapter 3 includes an account of one-way judgements of equivalence included in EU’s rules for imports of organic food and fishery products. Chapter 4 presents EU’s work and positions on equivalence and mutual recognition in the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Chapter 5 includes an assessment of the EU’s experience with mutual recognition and equivalence. Finally, in Chapter 6 some conclusions and final remarks are made. […]

To document

Abstract

The purpose of the report is to provide an overview of international guidelines dealing with the application of equivalence and mutual recognition as trade facilitating tools, focusing on the main aspects and application areas of these guidelines. The aim is furthermore to get a better understanding of both existing relevant guidelines and the possible need for development of further guidance in this area. The report focuses in particular on the potential for applying equivalence and mutual recognition in relation to food trade, and relates this to discussions taking place in the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). The report seeks to increase the knowledge about relevant guidelines and thus provide a better basis for decisions on whether to move the work on these issues further in the relevant international forums dealing with trade facilitation.

To document

Abstract

In this article, we present an empirical account of how the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), as an intergovernmental body, has changed after being referred to in the SPS Agreement of the WTO as the reference point for the elaboration of international food standards. We explore key issues that have recently been discussed in the Codex and which may have a significant impact on international food trade. Further, we develop a theoretical framework based on two alternative versions of institutional theory. We then analyze the observed changes of the role and functioning of Codex from these frameworks. Our conclusion is that a logic of consequences prevails over a logic of appropriateness in explaining nation-state behavior in an international context. Finally, our study of the Codex recognizes the importance of identifying the core interests of states, their strategic use of arguments based on these interests, as well as the institutional framework that affects them.

Abstract

This report looks at the special measures for agriculture within the field of taxation and social security. Chapter 1 and 2 deal with general overview of taxes and taxation principles. Chapter 3 give more detailed information of the tax system in the selected countries, US, Canada, Australia, Germany, UK, France, Ireland, Italy and Switzerland. Chapter four deals with notifications to the Committee on Agriculture in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) concerning tax measures. In chapter 5 we have tried to systematize the different tax schemes in the selected countries.