This area is dedicated to the reports and articles by CEPS researchers dedicated to the economic recovery of the EU, particularly those actions using EU recovery funds
Study that analyses the measures addressing Pillar 4 (social and territorial cohesion) of the RRF. It focuses on two policy domains: ALMP and PES. The study zooms in on the reforms and investments included in the RRF plans of three EU Member States (Italy, Spain and Croatia) and assesses their relevance, effectiveness and coherence.
CEPS Explainer on the limits of the new performance-based approach of the RRF and some reflections on milestones and targets to make the RRF a success story.
Published in the Court of Auditors Journal and written by Jorge Núñez and Tomas Ruiz. There is a big gap between what the expected and the delivery. The why and steps to address it.
RRF is expected to help boost investment in social infrastructure. This article investigates if the social investments are truly additional in six countries.
The EU budget’s current financial architecture is inappropriate to address the various crises it faces. This Policy Brief presents immediate actions to raise overall funding and to address the impacts of the war in Ukraine with unspent EU funds. It also calls for longer term reforms.
In-depth analysis of the National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRPs) of Austria, Belgium, and Germany. Exploiting a detailed database and building on semi-structured interviews, we find that all are aligned with RRF Regulation but differ greatly in terms of additionality.
The rules governing the EU budget are not fit for the modern challenges facing the European Union and the emerging demands and expectations placed on the EU, this report discusses the dysfunctions and the needed reforms in the Financial Regulation
Standardised analysis approach evaluating the programmes based on needs of the countries. It presents the Plans of the member states under a different light. Individual country sheets below on this page.
The analysis checks if there is a significant relationship between the total amount of RRF grants (in terms of the percentage of GDP) and an acceleration in public investment. Unfortunately the results are disappointing.
Standardised analysis approach evaluating the programmes based on needs of the countries. It presents the Plans of the member states under a different light.
Individual country sheets below on this page.
This analysis compares the NRRPs of Germany and Italy, two countries that have very different views and priorities on how their allocation of the recovery funds should be spent and invested over the short, medium and long-term.
The Commission's power to steer and monitor the National Recovery and Resilience Plans
Opportunities and Challenges
Detailed assessment of Italy
(Assessments updates in publication of 24 September 2021 for six countries and on country link)
This report sets out some of the main risks to the success of the recovery programmes. The report also presents a number of solutions to ensure that aspects critical to the recovery programmes are implemented.