Easter has come and gone and we are still none the wiser as to whether and how quickly Europe can manage without Russian gas. Employers and trade unions warn of a gas import stop from Russia, as you can read in the News. Meanwhile, prices for electricity and gas will continue to rise in the coming months, according to the comparison portal Verivox, which refers to publications from energy providers.
However, natural gas from Germany is still not an option to the Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Robert Habeck. In the North German Plain, there is a large amount of gas, but it is only accessible by fracking. “You would have to destroy deep layers of rock with a lot of pressure and chemical substances to extract the gas,” he said, referring to negative consequences for the environment. At the moment, Habeck said, there are also no companies that want to do that. In addition, it would “take years to set up new production facilities and get the approval procedures in place”.
Great hopes of decarbonizing the energy sector and EU industry lie in European emissions trading. As is well known, however, this will only work if there is sufficient protection against carbon leakage. To ensure that European producers remain internationally competitive despite high CO2 prices, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism CBAM is intended to ensure that foreign importers are asked to pay if they do not produce in a climate-friendly manner. The exact design of the instrument is once again the subject of debate in the EU Parliament, as a compromise proposal by the Industry and Energy Committee has met with little approval in other instances. Read about the content and criticisms of the compromise in today’s Europe.Table.
End of 2022, the EU Commission wants to fundamentally revise European pharmaceutical legislation. As a result, the pharmaceutical industry is on high alert. It is now trying to set the tone for the upcoming reforms with its own proposals for improving access to medicines, as Eugenie Ankowitsch reports.
In today’s Profile, learn what busy economist and CEPS Fellow Daniel Gros had to discuss with Barack Obama and how, as a German Italian, he must always argue from two perspectives.
I hope you had a chance to relax over the holidays and I wish you a great start to the week ahead.
The planned measures by the member companies of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), which include 20 of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, are intended to “significantly increase” the availability of innovative medicines in EU countries. In addition, patients’ waiting time for new medicines is to be reduced by several months, according to the current EFPIA statement.
According to the agreement, EFPIA member companies commit, among other things, to submit applications for pricing and reimbursement in all EU countries as early as possible and no later than two years after the central EU marketing authorization – provided local systems allow this.
Just days earlier, the association had published the most comprehensive EFPIA WAIT Indicator Survey to date. This identifies for individual countries how quickly new medicines are available and how many new medicines are available for patient care. The survey covers the period between 2017 and 2020 and shows that there are still significant differences between countries. As a rule, patients in Central and Eastern Europe and in the smaller member states wait the longest for access to new medicines. Many new medicines do not even reach mainstream patient care.
The average waiting time for reimbursement of innovative drug therapies in the countries of the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA) is 511 days. But while patients in Germany wait only around 133 days for access to new medicines, the figure is 594 days in Lithuania and 899 days in Romania.
In the period under review, the EMA approved a total of 160 drugs. After all, 147 have made it through to reimbursement in Germany and thus into the general supply. They are followed by Denmark (129), Austria (127), and Italy (127). Among the EU countries, Lithuania, Latvia, and Malta occupy the last places with 28, 26, and 11 reimbursable drugs, respectively.
Germany also leads the field in the availability of drugs for rare diseases. On average, it takes 102 days for an orphan drug to become available in Germany. The EMA approved a total of 57 drugs in the period under review – 54 of which also made it to Germany. Of the EU countries, Lithuania and Latvia again brought up the rear. In the two Baltic states, it took 984 and 1077 days, respectively, for drugs for rare diseases to reach patient care. However, of the 57 approved drugs, only one in Lithuania and two in Latvia made it to reimbursement.
“Germany’s very good position in terms of drug supply is no coincidence, but the result of decades of political consensus that approved drugs should reach patients quickly in this country,” commented Han Steutel, president of the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA). “That’s why it’s not a good idea for the traffic light coalition to put this at risk and conduct regulatory experiments in areas relevant to healthcare.”
The VFA president’s warning is aimed at a clause in the coalition agreement under which retroactive drug discounts are to be made possible in the AMNOG procedure. The association warns that this poses financial risks for companies that are difficult to calculate and would significantly impair their planning security. They would then have to consider whether to launch their new drug on the German market only when it was clear what the actual price would be after negotiated rebates. Then the traditionally fast availability of drugs in the German healthcare system could also quickly come to an end.
Looking across Europe, EFPIA Director General Nathalie Moll comes to a different conclusion: “For patients and healthcare systems, the situation is untenable,” she said. “After years of research and development in areas of unmet need, companies want their medicines to reach patients as quickly as possible. We believe it is time to change this.”
Over the past two years, EFPIA has documented the causes of inequalities in access to medicines and found that there are ten interrelated factors that explain the lack of availability and delays. From the pharmaceutical industry’s perspective, they are rooted in access systems and processes in EU member states and the corresponding impact on commercial decision-making. They ranged from a slow regulatory process, late initiation of market access assessment, duplicative evidence requirements, reimbursement delays, and local formulary decisions. As the causes are multifactorial, the only way to achieve faster and more equitable access for patients across Europe is through collaboration among various stakeholders.
Modeling by analytics firm IQVIApredicts that the submission requirement will increase the availability of medicines from 18 percent to as much as 64 percent in several countries, according to EFPIA. In addition, the obligation is estimated to reduce the waiting time for new medicines by four to five months, particularly in countries such as Bulgaria (ca. 179 days), Poland (ca. 129 days), and Romania (ca. 155 days).
The submission requirement will also be flanked by a new online portal with up-to-date information on the processing of applications for pricing and reimbursement schemes in the 27 EU countries. EFPIA also announced its intention to hold a discussion on fair prices for innovative medicines in EU member states. For example, the price should vary from country to country depending on economic strength, the association announced in a discussion paper.
It sets out the cornerstones of a fairness-based pricing system anchored in the principle of solidarity between member states and in the EU treaties. Providing a fairness-based system requires that the Commission and member states modify external price reference systems and put mechanisms in place to prevent the unintended consequences of internal trade in pharmaceuticals, it says.
“We can dramatically change the situation for patients across Europe by reducing the time to apply for pricing and reimbursement in all 27 EU member states, creating more transparency about barriers and delays to access, collaboratively designing a fairness-based pricing system, applying an efficient system for EU relative effectiveness assessments, and sharing information on the implementation of novel pricing mechanisms,” said EFPIA Director General Moll.
The pharmaceutical industry’s efforts seem like the famous flight to the front. During the consultations on the planned revision of the EU pharmaceutical legislation, which were concluded in December 2021, most pharmaceutical companies and industry associations came to the conclusion in their statements that improvements were possible in some areas. However, a fundamental revision was not necessary.
The European Commission apparently sees things differently. Improved access to affordable medicines and the elimination of sometimes glaring inequalities between EU member states are therefore high on the agenda when it comes to revising pharmaceutical legislation. For example, there are discussions about obliging pharmaceutical companies to market and supply their products in all EU member states.
The pharmaceutical industry has obviously recognized one thing in the meantime: There will certainly be no “business as usual”. And so, the current EFPIA publications no longer speak of merely selective improvements. Instead, it states that the industry “shares the concern about these delays” and recognizes that delays and the unavailability of medicines harm patients. It said urgent action is needed to address these “long-standing problems”. Whether the powerful pharmaceutical industry can thus set the direction of travel and keep the upcoming reforms influenced in its favor will probably become clear at the end of 2022, when the EU Commission intends to present its proposals.
If it’s up to the likely majority of MEPs of the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), the planned Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will be introduced over a much shorter period than envisaged by the Commission. This emerges from a compromise proposal on both dossiers of the Fit for 55 package published by Contexte shortly before Easter.
By the end of 2034, the CBAM is to have completely replaced the free allocation of CO2 certificates for the industry. The EU Commission had proposed a year later. However, the Brussels-based authority wants to begin phasing in the CBAM and phasing out free allocation as early as 2026. In the ITRE Committee next week, MEPs are expected to vote in favor of 2028 as the phase-out start date for free allocation, while CBAM is to start in 2027.
This would initially allow free allocations to be issued to the industry unchanged until 2028, allowing the CBAM to be tested under real-world conditions for one year. From 2023 to 2026, there would be a transition period for data collection, during which companies in the CBAM sectors would have to record what marginal financial compensation they would theoretically have to pay but would not pay it. In 2027, the CBAM would be introduced, while in parallel, the free allocations would remain in full for the time being.
However, such a double preferential treatment of European producers could conflict with WTO trade rules. The SPD in the EU Parliament says that this is possible, provided it is limited in time. Other groups are much more skeptical. The ITRE compromise, therefore, explicitly mentions that the CBAM must be WTO-compliant.
If the CBAM proves to be as effective as hoped against carbon leakage, free allocations in the CBAM sectors would be gradually reduced from 2028. Initially by 10 percent annually up to and including 2030, then by 17.5 percent each year until the end of 2034.
For exports, free allocations are to remain unchanged. Only after the end of the phase-in period of the CBAM should the Commission present a detailed impact assessment of the “effects on EU exports of the CBAM sectors and the development of global emissions,” the paper says.
The free allocations are to be reduced for companies that do not fully implement the recommendations of the energy audit report – if one is required by the Energy Efficiency Directive. The Commission had proposed issuing 25 percent fewer allowances free of charge in this case. The ITRE compromise provides for the amount of the reduction to be based on the recommendations of the energy audit, but by a minimum of 15 percent and a maximum of 40 percent.
The compromise proposals on both dossiers are supported by the liberal Renew, the conservatives of EPP and ECR, the social democratic S&D, and the nationalist ID group. Only the Greens and Left are absent. The Greens fear that the CBAM could be further weakened, which would also “weaken the clout of the climate mechanism more and more,” explains Michael Bloss (Greens/EFA) at the request of the Europe.Table. Bloss is shadow rapporteur for the ETS in the ENVI Committee as well as a member of ITRE. He calls for a strong CBAM that uses high CO2 prices to incentivize the industry to save CO2 and invest in climate-neutral and modern technologies. He does not see this fulfilled by the compromise proposal in the ITRE Committee.
Nevertheless, the two compromises will likely receive a clear majority in the Industry Committee on Wednesday. How significant the impact of the vote will actually be, however, is questionable. Although the ITRE is involved in the negotiations as an associated committee, and its opinion should be taken into account, the Environment Committee is the lead committee.
Within the respective parliamentary groups, there are also sometimes considerable differences in the positions of the ITRE and ENVI committee members. Support for the compromise in ITRE by the Social Democrats, for example, is therefore not synonymous with its consideration in ENVI.
Read here how the positions in ENVI on CBAM and ETS are distributed.
It’s not easy to get Daniel Gros on the phone. He travels a lot. At the first attempt, he is on a plane; at the next attempt, he is called on the other phone at the same time, but then answers quickly (in Italian) and finally makes time for a relaxed conversation in which he talks about himself and his life, which has been shaped through and through by Europe: At the age of eighteen, the native German moved with his family to Italy, where he also earned his master’s degree in economics. “In Italy, I’m considered more of a German, and in Germany, more of an Italian,” says the economist, who in between earned a doctorate in the US and has now lived in Brussels for decades.
And then, he illustrates his statement with an example that does not coincidentally comes from economics: “In Germany, it met with irritation that I spoke out early on in favor of a monetary union and also a banking union. And in Italy, I seem strange when I insist that sound public finances are good for the national economy and help the country achieve greater prosperity in the long term.”
Daniel Gros has already experienced a few crises. However, in the current volatile times, even he sometimes lies awake at night with worries. “The euro crisis was tough, and no one wanted the whole thing to go down the drain. The refugee crisis was also a test. But now, it’s not just about financial and practical issues, it’s about the values we represent, about the order in Europe, and our security. That leaves no one unshaken,” he says.
Nevertheless, when he sees a social problem, as an analyst he first asks about the economic mechanisms at work. After all, that is the contribution he can make as an economist. Currently, for example, he is concerned with the devaluation of money. “We have a strangely high inflation, which is always attributed to energy prices. But energy prices are not at all higher than they were ten years ago. How is this possible?” he asks – without having an answer ready.
It is clear to the economist that the population needs incentives to save gas and thus contribute to Europe’s energy independence: “Of course, we need to compensate low-income earners. And you could give a premium to those who use less gas compared to the previous year, so they would even make a profit in the process.”
Before joining the European think tank Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Daniel Gros worked, among other things, as an economic advisor to the European Commission’s Delors Committee, which developed the plans for the euro. A time he looks back on fondly. “Nobody believed in the plan for monetary union back then,” he recalls. Then, in the early 1990s, he had the opportunity to get to know a Russia that no longer exists.
And during the euro crisis, he spoke personally with various heads of state, including the US president. “Barack Obama was afraid that the euro crisis would mess up his re-election. But he knew what he was doing. I couldn’t add much additional value,” says Daniel Gros, who talks a lot about his job and little about his private life. But at least he reveals that he has three children and that he practices the Japanese martial art Aikidō. Janna Degener-Storr
Easter has come and gone and we are still none the wiser as to whether and how quickly Europe can manage without Russian gas. Employers and trade unions warn of a gas import stop from Russia, as you can read in the News. Meanwhile, prices for electricity and gas will continue to rise in the coming months, according to the comparison portal Verivox, which refers to publications from energy providers.
However, natural gas from Germany is still not an option to the Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Robert Habeck. In the North German Plain, there is a large amount of gas, but it is only accessible by fracking. “You would have to destroy deep layers of rock with a lot of pressure and chemical substances to extract the gas,” he said, referring to negative consequences for the environment. At the moment, Habeck said, there are also no companies that want to do that. In addition, it would “take years to set up new production facilities and get the approval procedures in place”.
Great hopes of decarbonizing the energy sector and EU industry lie in European emissions trading. As is well known, however, this will only work if there is sufficient protection against carbon leakage. To ensure that European producers remain internationally competitive despite high CO2 prices, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism CBAM is intended to ensure that foreign importers are asked to pay if they do not produce in a climate-friendly manner. The exact design of the instrument is once again the subject of debate in the EU Parliament, as a compromise proposal by the Industry and Energy Committee has met with little approval in other instances. Read about the content and criticisms of the compromise in today’s Europe.Table.
End of 2022, the EU Commission wants to fundamentally revise European pharmaceutical legislation. As a result, the pharmaceutical industry is on high alert. It is now trying to set the tone for the upcoming reforms with its own proposals for improving access to medicines, as Eugenie Ankowitsch reports.
In today’s Profile, learn what busy economist and CEPS Fellow Daniel Gros had to discuss with Barack Obama and how, as a German Italian, he must always argue from two perspectives.
I hope you had a chance to relax over the holidays and I wish you a great start to the week ahead.
The planned measures by the member companies of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), which include 20 of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, are intended to “significantly increase” the availability of innovative medicines in EU countries. In addition, patients’ waiting time for new medicines is to be reduced by several months, according to the current EFPIA statement.
According to the agreement, EFPIA member companies commit, among other things, to submit applications for pricing and reimbursement in all EU countries as early as possible and no later than two years after the central EU marketing authorization – provided local systems allow this.
Just days earlier, the association had published the most comprehensive EFPIA WAIT Indicator Survey to date. This identifies for individual countries how quickly new medicines are available and how many new medicines are available for patient care. The survey covers the period between 2017 and 2020 and shows that there are still significant differences between countries. As a rule, patients in Central and Eastern Europe and in the smaller member states wait the longest for access to new medicines. Many new medicines do not even reach mainstream patient care.
The average waiting time for reimbursement of innovative drug therapies in the countries of the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA) is 511 days. But while patients in Germany wait only around 133 days for access to new medicines, the figure is 594 days in Lithuania and 899 days in Romania.
In the period under review, the EMA approved a total of 160 drugs. After all, 147 have made it through to reimbursement in Germany and thus into the general supply. They are followed by Denmark (129), Austria (127), and Italy (127). Among the EU countries, Lithuania, Latvia, and Malta occupy the last places with 28, 26, and 11 reimbursable drugs, respectively.
Germany also leads the field in the availability of drugs for rare diseases. On average, it takes 102 days for an orphan drug to become available in Germany. The EMA approved a total of 57 drugs in the period under review – 54 of which also made it to Germany. Of the EU countries, Lithuania and Latvia again brought up the rear. In the two Baltic states, it took 984 and 1077 days, respectively, for drugs for rare diseases to reach patient care. However, of the 57 approved drugs, only one in Lithuania and two in Latvia made it to reimbursement.
“Germany’s very good position in terms of drug supply is no coincidence, but the result of decades of political consensus that approved drugs should reach patients quickly in this country,” commented Han Steutel, president of the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA). “That’s why it’s not a good idea for the traffic light coalition to put this at risk and conduct regulatory experiments in areas relevant to healthcare.”
The VFA president’s warning is aimed at a clause in the coalition agreement under which retroactive drug discounts are to be made possible in the AMNOG procedure. The association warns that this poses financial risks for companies that are difficult to calculate and would significantly impair their planning security. They would then have to consider whether to launch their new drug on the German market only when it was clear what the actual price would be after negotiated rebates. Then the traditionally fast availability of drugs in the German healthcare system could also quickly come to an end.
Looking across Europe, EFPIA Director General Nathalie Moll comes to a different conclusion: “For patients and healthcare systems, the situation is untenable,” she said. “After years of research and development in areas of unmet need, companies want their medicines to reach patients as quickly as possible. We believe it is time to change this.”
Over the past two years, EFPIA has documented the causes of inequalities in access to medicines and found that there are ten interrelated factors that explain the lack of availability and delays. From the pharmaceutical industry’s perspective, they are rooted in access systems and processes in EU member states and the corresponding impact on commercial decision-making. They ranged from a slow regulatory process, late initiation of market access assessment, duplicative evidence requirements, reimbursement delays, and local formulary decisions. As the causes are multifactorial, the only way to achieve faster and more equitable access for patients across Europe is through collaboration among various stakeholders.
Modeling by analytics firm IQVIApredicts that the submission requirement will increase the availability of medicines from 18 percent to as much as 64 percent in several countries, according to EFPIA. In addition, the obligation is estimated to reduce the waiting time for new medicines by four to five months, particularly in countries such as Bulgaria (ca. 179 days), Poland (ca. 129 days), and Romania (ca. 155 days).
The submission requirement will also be flanked by a new online portal with up-to-date information on the processing of applications for pricing and reimbursement schemes in the 27 EU countries. EFPIA also announced its intention to hold a discussion on fair prices for innovative medicines in EU member states. For example, the price should vary from country to country depending on economic strength, the association announced in a discussion paper.
It sets out the cornerstones of a fairness-based pricing system anchored in the principle of solidarity between member states and in the EU treaties. Providing a fairness-based system requires that the Commission and member states modify external price reference systems and put mechanisms in place to prevent the unintended consequences of internal trade in pharmaceuticals, it says.
“We can dramatically change the situation for patients across Europe by reducing the time to apply for pricing and reimbursement in all 27 EU member states, creating more transparency about barriers and delays to access, collaboratively designing a fairness-based pricing system, applying an efficient system for EU relative effectiveness assessments, and sharing information on the implementation of novel pricing mechanisms,” said EFPIA Director General Moll.
The pharmaceutical industry’s efforts seem like the famous flight to the front. During the consultations on the planned revision of the EU pharmaceutical legislation, which were concluded in December 2021, most pharmaceutical companies and industry associations came to the conclusion in their statements that improvements were possible in some areas. However, a fundamental revision was not necessary.
The European Commission apparently sees things differently. Improved access to affordable medicines and the elimination of sometimes glaring inequalities between EU member states are therefore high on the agenda when it comes to revising pharmaceutical legislation. For example, there are discussions about obliging pharmaceutical companies to market and supply their products in all EU member states.
The pharmaceutical industry has obviously recognized one thing in the meantime: There will certainly be no “business as usual”. And so, the current EFPIA publications no longer speak of merely selective improvements. Instead, it states that the industry “shares the concern about these delays” and recognizes that delays and the unavailability of medicines harm patients. It said urgent action is needed to address these “long-standing problems”. Whether the powerful pharmaceutical industry can thus set the direction of travel and keep the upcoming reforms influenced in its favor will probably become clear at the end of 2022, when the EU Commission intends to present its proposals.
If it’s up to the likely majority of MEPs of the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), the planned Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will be introduced over a much shorter period than envisaged by the Commission. This emerges from a compromise proposal on both dossiers of the Fit for 55 package published by Contexte shortly before Easter.
By the end of 2034, the CBAM is to have completely replaced the free allocation of CO2 certificates for the industry. The EU Commission had proposed a year later. However, the Brussels-based authority wants to begin phasing in the CBAM and phasing out free allocation as early as 2026. In the ITRE Committee next week, MEPs are expected to vote in favor of 2028 as the phase-out start date for free allocation, while CBAM is to start in 2027.
This would initially allow free allocations to be issued to the industry unchanged until 2028, allowing the CBAM to be tested under real-world conditions for one year. From 2023 to 2026, there would be a transition period for data collection, during which companies in the CBAM sectors would have to record what marginal financial compensation they would theoretically have to pay but would not pay it. In 2027, the CBAM would be introduced, while in parallel, the free allocations would remain in full for the time being.
However, such a double preferential treatment of European producers could conflict with WTO trade rules. The SPD in the EU Parliament says that this is possible, provided it is limited in time. Other groups are much more skeptical. The ITRE compromise, therefore, explicitly mentions that the CBAM must be WTO-compliant.
If the CBAM proves to be as effective as hoped against carbon leakage, free allocations in the CBAM sectors would be gradually reduced from 2028. Initially by 10 percent annually up to and including 2030, then by 17.5 percent each year until the end of 2034.
For exports, free allocations are to remain unchanged. Only after the end of the phase-in period of the CBAM should the Commission present a detailed impact assessment of the “effects on EU exports of the CBAM sectors and the development of global emissions,” the paper says.
The free allocations are to be reduced for companies that do not fully implement the recommendations of the energy audit report – if one is required by the Energy Efficiency Directive. The Commission had proposed issuing 25 percent fewer allowances free of charge in this case. The ITRE compromise provides for the amount of the reduction to be based on the recommendations of the energy audit, but by a minimum of 15 percent and a maximum of 40 percent.
The compromise proposals on both dossiers are supported by the liberal Renew, the conservatives of EPP and ECR, the social democratic S&D, and the nationalist ID group. Only the Greens and Left are absent. The Greens fear that the CBAM could be further weakened, which would also “weaken the clout of the climate mechanism more and more,” explains Michael Bloss (Greens/EFA) at the request of the Europe.Table. Bloss is shadow rapporteur for the ETS in the ENVI Committee as well as a member of ITRE. He calls for a strong CBAM that uses high CO2 prices to incentivize the industry to save CO2 and invest in climate-neutral and modern technologies. He does not see this fulfilled by the compromise proposal in the ITRE Committee.
Nevertheless, the two compromises will likely receive a clear majority in the Industry Committee on Wednesday. How significant the impact of the vote will actually be, however, is questionable. Although the ITRE is involved in the negotiations as an associated committee, and its opinion should be taken into account, the Environment Committee is the lead committee.
Within the respective parliamentary groups, there are also sometimes considerable differences in the positions of the ITRE and ENVI committee members. Support for the compromise in ITRE by the Social Democrats, for example, is therefore not synonymous with its consideration in ENVI.
Read here how the positions in ENVI on CBAM and ETS are distributed.
It’s not easy to get Daniel Gros on the phone. He travels a lot. At the first attempt, he is on a plane; at the next attempt, he is called on the other phone at the same time, but then answers quickly (in Italian) and finally makes time for a relaxed conversation in which he talks about himself and his life, which has been shaped through and through by Europe: At the age of eighteen, the native German moved with his family to Italy, where he also earned his master’s degree in economics. “In Italy, I’m considered more of a German, and in Germany, more of an Italian,” says the economist, who in between earned a doctorate in the US and has now lived in Brussels for decades.
And then, he illustrates his statement with an example that does not coincidentally comes from economics: “In Germany, it met with irritation that I spoke out early on in favor of a monetary union and also a banking union. And in Italy, I seem strange when I insist that sound public finances are good for the national economy and help the country achieve greater prosperity in the long term.”
Daniel Gros has already experienced a few crises. However, in the current volatile times, even he sometimes lies awake at night with worries. “The euro crisis was tough, and no one wanted the whole thing to go down the drain. The refugee crisis was also a test. But now, it’s not just about financial and practical issues, it’s about the values we represent, about the order in Europe, and our security. That leaves no one unshaken,” he says.
Nevertheless, when he sees a social problem, as an analyst he first asks about the economic mechanisms at work. After all, that is the contribution he can make as an economist. Currently, for example, he is concerned with the devaluation of money. “We have a strangely high inflation, which is always attributed to energy prices. But energy prices are not at all higher than they were ten years ago. How is this possible?” he asks – without having an answer ready.
It is clear to the economist that the population needs incentives to save gas and thus contribute to Europe’s energy independence: “Of course, we need to compensate low-income earners. And you could give a premium to those who use less gas compared to the previous year, so they would even make a profit in the process.”
Before joining the European think tank Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Daniel Gros worked, among other things, as an economic advisor to the European Commission’s Delors Committee, which developed the plans for the euro. A time he looks back on fondly. “Nobody believed in the plan for monetary union back then,” he recalls. Then, in the early 1990s, he had the opportunity to get to know a Russia that no longer exists.
And during the euro crisis, he spoke personally with various heads of state, including the US president. “Barack Obama was afraid that the euro crisis would mess up his re-election. But he knew what he was doing. I couldn’t add much additional value,” says Daniel Gros, who talks a lot about his job and little about his private life. But at least he reveals that he has three children and that he practices the Japanese martial art Aikidō. Janna Degener-Storr
