Assessment of the European Commission's proposals for financing the EU budget in 2021–20271

IF 0.6 Q4 ECONOMICS
E. Kawecka-Wyrzykowska
{"title":"Assessment of the European Commission's proposals for financing the EU budget in 2021–20271","authors":"E. Kawecka-Wyrzykowska","doi":"10.2478/ijme-2020-0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A major problem in all European Union (EU) budgetary negotiations is the approach of Member States in net return terms (the fair-return approach). EU members compare their contributions to the EU budget with transfers that they receive from the budget. Net payers tend to reduce the size of the budget to contribute less. Brexit has aggravated the problem of the size of revenue (due to the United Kingdom's position as a big net payer). Also, new expenditure needs have arisen (for protecting external borders and climate, innovation, etc.). To address those needs, in 2018, the Commission submitted three proposals to supplement the current resources to finance the EU budget after the expiry of the principles of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014–2020 at the end of 2020. The article aims to indicate whether the Commission's proposals are good instruments for the financing of the EU budget. The assessment relies on selected criteria based on theory. It also takes account of the feasibility of the proposals. The main conclusion is that none of the proposals meets well theoretical criteria of “genuine” EU revenue. Also, for practical reasons, it will be difficult for the Member States to come to an agreement on new budgetary resources. All proposals would be relatively costly for Poland.","PeriodicalId":43388,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2020-0018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract A major problem in all European Union (EU) budgetary negotiations is the approach of Member States in net return terms (the fair-return approach). EU members compare their contributions to the EU budget with transfers that they receive from the budget. Net payers tend to reduce the size of the budget to contribute less. Brexit has aggravated the problem of the size of revenue (due to the United Kingdom's position as a big net payer). Also, new expenditure needs have arisen (for protecting external borders and climate, innovation, etc.). To address those needs, in 2018, the Commission submitted three proposals to supplement the current resources to finance the EU budget after the expiry of the principles of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014–2020 at the end of 2020. The article aims to indicate whether the Commission's proposals are good instruments for the financing of the EU budget. The assessment relies on selected criteria based on theory. It also takes account of the feasibility of the proposals. The main conclusion is that none of the proposals meets well theoretical criteria of “genuine” EU revenue. Also, for practical reasons, it will be difficult for the Member States to come to an agreement on new budgetary resources. All proposals would be relatively costly for Poland.
对欧盟委员会2021-20271年欧盟预算融资提案的评估
所有欧盟(EU)预算谈判中的一个主要问题是成员国在净回报方面的方法(公平回报方法)。欧盟成员国将其对欧盟预算的贡献与从预算中获得的转移支付进行比较。净支付国倾向于减少预算规模以减少捐款。英国脱欧加剧了税收规模的问题(因为英国是一个净支付大国)。此外,还出现了新的支出需求(用于保护外部边界和气候、创新等)。为了满足这些需求,2018年,欧盟委员会提交了三项提案,以补充当前资源,以便在2014-2020年多年度财务框架(MFF)原则于2020年底到期后为欧盟预算提供资金。本文旨在表明欧盟委员会的建议是否是欧盟预算融资的好工具。评估依赖于基于理论的选定标准。它还考虑到建议的可行性。主要结论是,没有一项提议很好地符合“真正的”欧盟收入的理论标准。此外,由于实际原因,会员国将很难就新的预算资源达成协议。所有的提议对波兰来说都是相对昂贵的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信