Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. The Impact of Increased Mass Litigation in the UK
- Author:
- Oscar Guinea, Dyuti Pandya, Vanika Sharma, and Renata Zilli
- Publication Date:
- 06-2025
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
- Abstract:
- Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has seen a marked rise in collective litigation, transforming what was once a niche legal, rarely employed, tool into a fast-growing business model with wide-ranging economic implications. At a time when the country seeks to boost investment, support innovation and attract global business, the proliferation of mass litigation risks undermining these ambitions. This study takes a closer look at how mass litigation is reshaping the UK’s legal, business and regulatory landscape – and asks whether the balance between justice and economic efficiency is tipping too far. The UK stands out among European countries for the ease with which mass claims can be launched. It has long provided a favourable environment for consumer representation and dispute resolution, with a strong culture of accountability. But recent years have seen the emergence of a new ecosystem: law firms specialising in group actions; litigation funders offering upfront capital in exchange for a share of awards; and Claims Management Companies (CMCs) that recruit claimants en masse and process high volumes of cases. The business model has proved highly successful, making group litigation an asset class in its own right and pushing collective actions far beyond traditional sectors such as banking and pharmaceuticals. Today, a growing portion of the UK economy is in the firing line – with potentially damaging consequences. This shift has been rapid and striking. From fewer than 10 mass litigation cases in the late 2010s, the UK saw 47 such actions in 2024 alone, more than any other European country. On a per capita basis, the UK ranks as one of the most litigious jurisdictions in Europe, well ahead of comparable economies such as France or Germany. The implications for the UK economy are far-reaching: many of the companies targeted by these actions operate in sectors that were included in the UK Government’s latest industrial strategy as critical to the country’s future economic growth. Whereas previously limited to financial and professional services, mass litigation cases are now rising in UK companies working in life sciences, advanced manufacturing and digital services. These are industries where risk-taking, long product development cycles and data-driven innovation are the norm. The threat of mass litigation introduces uncertainty and cost at exactly the moment when these businesses need regulatory clarity and investment stability. Moreover, claims against public sector entities involve a direct transfer of capital from the tax payer to hedge fund litigation funders. The financial burden is also considerable. Legal fees and returns to funders often consume a large share of total settlements, reducing the compensation that actually reaches affected individuals. In the Post Office Horizon scandal, for example, £46 million in legal fees and funders payments were deducted from a £57 million settlement, leaving a paltry sum of just over £20,000 per claimant. In the recent judgment of Merricks v. Mastercard, £100 million have been allocated to compensate consumers. Affected individuals could receive up to £70 each if only 5 percent claim, but as little as £2.5 if the full class of 44 million comes forward. These figures raise questions about who really benefits from mass litigation. The limited benefits for individual consumers stand in stark contrast to the substantial costs that mass litigation imposes on the UK economy as a whole. Our scenario modelling shows that, under a scenario where the costs of mass litigation are just 30 percent of the current costs in the US, litigation costs in the UK could reach more than half of the claim value; the cost of mass litigation for the UK economy could reach close to £18 billion, and the market capitalisation of the UK’s most innovative companies could fall by £11.2 billion, more than half the announced public investment into R&D in the 2025 Autumn Budget. These financial pressures affect the whole country. While many large companies are headquartered in Greater London, their operations, and the jobs they support, are often spread across the wider regions. This means that the impact of a legal challenge is not just a concern for a corporate boardroom in London, but it impacts local economies and communities across the UK. As the Civil Justice Council reviews the framework for litigation funding, this study provides evidence to inform the debate. It does not argue against collective actions per se but urges a careful weighing of their benefits against broader economic costs. If the UK wants to remain an attractive destination for business, investment, and innovation, it must ensure that its legal infrastructure supports rather than stifles those ambitions.
- Topic:
- Economics, European Union, Finance, and Litigation
- Political Geography:
- United Kingdom and Europe
3. Strengthening the Supply-Side Innovation in EU Telecommunications
- Author:
- Fredrik Erixon, Oscar Guinea, and Dyuti Pandya
- Publication Date:
- 06-2025
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
- Abstract:
- The telecommunications sector is central to the EU’s competitiveness, not only providing the infrastructure that underpins digital connectivity but also serving as a key driver of innovation. Recent EU reports already highlight the persistent structural challenges faced by the EU telecommunication sector: market fragmentation, low investment levels, divergent spectrum policies, and an urgent need to bolster digital sovereignty. However, a critical dimension in this discussion often receives far less attention: the supply of the underlying technologies that power telecommunications infrastructure. In this domain, EU companies remain competitive. In 2023, 27 EU-headquartered firms were among the world’s top 2,000 R&D spenders in telecommunications, accounting for 16 percent of global sectoral investment. These figures underscore that, while Europe may lag in investment and infrastructure, it still holds strategic leadership in telecom innovation and technology development. Central to Europe’s success are standard development organisations (SDOs), technical standards, and Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). SDOs provide collaborative forums where companies jointly develop technical standards that ensure interoperability, reduce fragmentation and foster innovation. Complementing this, SEPs protect the innovations embedded within these standards, granting European companies vital licensing revenues that sustain their research efforts. This system is particularly important for EU firms, which tend to be smaller than their global competitors; it enables them to specialise in cutting-edge technology development and commercialise their innovations globally without needing to dominate manufacturing or end-user markets. As competitiveness in telecommunications increasingly depends on the pace and adoption of innovation, the EU faces both a challenge and an opportunity. European firms have the potential not only to supply critical technologies but to drive breakthroughs in connectivity which are linked to the development of other technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) or quantum technologies. However, to stay competitive, the EU must reinforce its position on the supply side, where its companies still operate at the technological frontier.
- Topic:
- Economics, European Union, Digital Economy, Innovation, and Supply and Demand
- Political Geography:
- Europe
4. Prepare now: Europe must get ready for the coming long-term care surge
- Author:
- Svend E. Hougaard Jensen, David Pinkus, and Nina Ruer
- Publication Date:
- 01-2025
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Bruegel
- Abstract:
- Demographic change and ageing populations in European Union countries will impact many aspects of the economy and have a direct effect on long-term care (LTC) systems. Demand for LTC already exceeds supply in many EU countries, leading to the ‘care gap’. This gap is expected to widen, threatening quality of life for the elderly, exacerbating gender disparities and imposing significant economic costs. The root causes of the gap include demographic shifts, inadequate public investment, workforce shortages and a heavy reliance on informal caregiving. Women stand to lose the most if no steps are taken to prepare LTC systems for the coming surge in demand because care, both formal and informal, is predominantly provided by women. The care gap can be reduced by either increasing the supply of care or by reducing the demand for care. We assess LTC reforms in five EU countries and explain how these can affect the care gap by influencing demand and supply. Governments should: Recognise LTC as a priority. Governments should increase public spending on LTC and make LTC a central policy priority linked to broader goals, including gender equality and economic growth. Expand funding mechanisms. Governments can introduce new means of financing, such as mandatory LTC insurance and pre-funding mechanisms. Most importantly, benefits should target those with the greatest needs, to promote equity and adequacy. Support the workforce more. The LTC sector should be made more attractive by raising wages, improving working conditions and expanding training programmes to attract and retain workers. Develop prevention strategies. EU funds could be directed to research into treatments targeting age-related diseases such as dementia. National governments could invest in public health campaigns and preventive care to reduce future demand. Use the newest technologies. EU countries should invest in robotics and assistive technologies to improve productivity and to reduce physical strain on caregivers.
- Topic:
- Economics, Health, Governance, European Union, and Macroeconomics
- Political Geography:
- Europe
5. Not yet Trump-proof: an evaluation of the European Commission’s emerging policy platform
- Author:
- Heather Grabbe and Jeromin Zettelmeyer
- Publication Date:
- 01-2025
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Bruegel
- Abstract:
- The economic strategy being defined by the 2024-2029 European Commission seems to follow the prescriptions on innovation and single market reform, and the expansive approach to industrial policy, set out by Mario Draghi in his September 2024 report on European Union competitiveness, with two important differences. First, the Commission stops short of calling for World Trade Organisation-prohibited subsidies – this is welcome. Second, the Commission proposes a new state aid framework for national industrial policy rather than expansion of EU-level public investment funding. This runs the risk of weakening the single market and harming competition, with the unintended consequence of protecting incumbents and inhibiting structural change. In terms of specific policies, on defence, the Commission is right to face up to the challenge of defining an EU procurement mechanism that offers sufficient speed and cost advantages to justify large-scale funding. On economic security and international partnerships, the Commission is right to take a broader approach than a foreign economic policy focused only on supply chains. What is lacking is a much greater commitment to providing support for climate mitigation in developing countries. The second Trump presidency creates risks for the Commission strategy. President Trump has gone further than expected in threatening territorial expansion and with the speed, aggression and disregard for the rule of law with which he has started to implement his policies. These factors will complicate the EU-United States relationship. The best defence against both Trump and the competitive and security threats posed by China is to accelerate policies that address the EU’s structural weaknesses: raising productivity growth, defence capacity and economic security. Economic security, in turn, requires more resilient trade relationships, less financial dependence on the US and an improved standing with emerging market and developing economies. The EU should also seize the opportunity offered by the shift in US policy from subsidies to deregulation. While the EU should not race Trump to the bottom on environmental or financial deregulation, it should rapidly improve its own regulatory framework while building on its core strengths: human capital and the rule of law. Unlike tariff wars or discriminatory subsidies, a competition to provide a good business environment is not a zero-sum game.
- Topic:
- Security, Economics, Industrial Policy, Budget, European Union, Digital Economy, Trade Policy, Donald Trump, Sustainability, European Commission, and Energy
- Political Geography:
- Europe and United States of America
6. Building coalitions for climate transition and nature restoration
- Author:
- Jean Pisani-Ferry, Beatrice di Mauro, and Jeromin Zettelmeyer
- Publication Date:
- 07-2025
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Bruegel
- Abstract:
- Global climate and biodiversity outcomes will largely be determined in emerging and developing economies (EMDEs). We propose a four-pillar strategy to support climate and nature preservation in line with the economic interests of both developing and advanced countries. This would move beyond voluntary pledges to embed climate and nature objectives into the structures of trade, finance and industrial policy, creating a self-reinforcing system of cooperation and reducing the net costs of the green transition. Under Pillar 1, a coalition of advanced and developing countries would link tiered carbon pricing with a common carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). Pillar 2 would create a climate-finance coalition to decarbonise the power sectors of developing countries. Pillar 3 would involve partnerships to develop clean energy-intensive industrial production stages in developing economies with rich renewables endowments; these would feed into the supply chains of the European Union and other energy-importing advanced economies. Pillar 4 would redesign markets to create scalable and credible mechanisms to fund carbon removals. Technology-based removals can be incentivised through the introduction of clean-up certificates into the EU emissions trading system, while nature-based removals would require improved market design centred on a new asset class: nature shares. The four pillars reinforce each other. A multi-country CBAM and carbon pricing coalition (Pillar 1) would reduce the cost of financing power sector decarbonisation (Pillar 2). Linking EMDE membership of the CBAM and carbon-pricing coalition to financial support for the decarbonisation of power sectors would also make it more attractive for EMDEs to adopt carbon prices. Decarbonisation of power sectors (Pillar 2) would be a precondition for developing clean, highly energy-intensive industry in renewables-rich EMDEs (Pillar 3). The Pillar 1 coalition should include the EU, China and as many other countries as possible. Advanced countries and China could underpin the Pillar 2 financier coalition. Pillar 3 would involve the EU and potentially other energy-poor advanced countries, along with EMDEs that are richly endowed with renewables. Pillar 4 would include the main custodians of the planet’s natural capital. Enabling these coalitions will require EU leadership.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Economics, Industrial Policy, Trade, Sustainability, Decarbonization, and Green Transition
- Political Geography:
- Europe
7. Lessons from West Germany's Cold War experience
- Author:
- Paul Williams
- Publication Date:
- 04-2025
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Public International Law Policy Group
- Abstract:
- The Russian aggression against Ukraine is now more than three years old. A new US administration is implementing a radical approach to securing a ceasefire and appears poised to limit direct military assistance to Ukraine. Consequently, Europe now recognizes that it must approach this war in a decidedly different manner than might have been presumed only a few months ago. The past may offer hints to a path forward for Ukraine to survive and ultimately prevail against Russia. While the imminent threat of war hung over Europe during the Cold War, West Germany lived under the constant threat of Soviet aggression. Yet, through economic revival, strategic military growth and partnerships, and careful political maneuvering, West Germany not only outlasted its aggressor but laid the groundwork for long-term stability and prosperity. West Germany's experience during the Cold War offers valuable insights for Ukraine in its pursuit of enduring stability and prosperity amid external threats. This blog explores some of the lessons that may be drawn from West Germany across economic and military themes.
- Topic:
- Cold War, Economics, History, Military, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and West Germany
8. A New Triangle: The Interplay Between China and EU-India Relations
- Author:
- Philippe Le Corre
- Publication Date:
- 04-2025
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Asia Society
- Abstract:
- China has shaped the U.S.-India relationship for decades.1 Today, another significant triangle is emerging: the China-EU-India relationship. Indian and European leaders are strengthening ties. Both view China as a formidable economic and security rival while regarding the United States as a key security partner (and, for Europe, a long-standing ally). What is the current state of EU-China and EU-India relations? As India’s influence and economic appeal grow, could it become a viable alternative to China for European business leaders and policymakers? How is Brussels incorporating India into its strategies to address a potential crisis in Asia or the broader Indo-Pacific? Twenty-five years ago, the European Union viewed China as a top priority for business, cultural exchanges, and diplomacy. Following the introduction of Beijing’s open-door policy in 1978 and with strong encouragement from Chinese authorities, European companies flocked to China. Initially, many Europeans used Hong Kong as an intermediary for business, but by the mid-1990s, Guangdong Province and Shanghai became key gateways to the Chinese market, particularly for Germany and France.2 Trade and investment surged, especially after China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, which was widely supported by European political and business elites. Today, China remains the EU’s largest trading partner, with substantial European investments across the mainland. In contrast, India was long viewed as a potential partner, but only a few EU member states took steps to forge a strategic partnership with New Delhi. European investments in India were — and still are — limited, with many corporations citing challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, market access barriers, and bureaucratic red tape, which make it difficult to operate in most Indian states. However, the mood has begun to shift. On the EU side, the European Commission’s 2019 China strategy characterized Beijing as “a partner, a competitor, and a systemic rival.” The COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted direct links between Europe and China from 2020 to 2022, caused significant strain. This was followed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, an event many on the continent perceive as having Beijing’s tacit support. Additional factors, including an increasingly authoritarian regime at home and a more assertive China abroad, have contributed to European perceptions,3 as explained at length by the Center for China Analysis’s latest Global Public Opinion on China project.4 This, in turn, has affected the EU-China relationship, which has been gradually downgraded from the “honeymoon” period of 1995–2015. On the other hand, the strengthening EU-India relationship is a relatively recent development, driven by several factors that have emerged in the wake of the pandemic. These include the rise of the ambitious Bharatiya Janata Party under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who first took office in 2014 and is now serving his third term, as well as a broader diversity of partnerships between the EU and India. Other factors influencing EU-India relations include the growing assertiveness of the People’s Republic of China and the United States’ shift away from multilateralism during President Donald Trump’s first term (2017–2021). Since January 2025, the increasing probability of a break in the transatlantic alliance under the new Trump administration is leading the EU to look for new partners, including in the Indo-Pacific region. In addition, India’s robust GDP growth — 6.6% in 2025 and a projected 6.7% in 2026 — has attracted European businesses.5 In a global environment defined by multipolarity, could the previously low-profile EU-India relationship evolve into a closer partnership? With EU-China relations facing significant challenges, might India emerge as a viable alternative Asian partner for Europe? The current EU-India relationship is described as “strategic.” In reality, it is partial and uneven, and there are major differences in the nature of relations between India and individual EU member states. Meanwhile, how does Beijing view its competitor in the Global South as it seeks to win over Europe’s support? This paper explores the dynamics of the interaction among these three powers in the rapidly changing geopolitical context. It examines India’s political and economic challenges in the context of the EU-China relationship, how the EU-India relationship is evolving, and whether an EU-India partnership could take center stage if tensions with China escalate. European countries have kept strong ties with the Global South, and some see a strong India as a potential bridge for fostering cooperation in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Economics, Bilateral Relations, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, India, and Asia
9. The European Union and Critical Raw Materials: Juggling Geopolitical and Economic Realities
- Author:
- Dan Ziebarth
- Publication Date:
- 01-2025
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
- Abstract:
- Over the past decade, critical raw materials (CRMs) have emerged as a crucial focus for governments and industries worldwide. These materials, which include rare earth elements, lithium, cobalt, and others, have gained strategic importance due to their essential role in modern technologies, particularly those related to clean energy, digitalization, and advanced manufacturing (CRM Alliance 2024). In particular, the essential role of CRMs in clean energy technologies and the global push for a green energy transition have led to a surge in demand for CRMs (World Economic Forum 24-05-2024). This surge has created substantial opportunities for green industrialization. According to the International Energy Agency, the market for these raw materials has more than doubled over the past five years, with expectations of "unprecedented growth" in the coming years (International Energy Agency 2023); current climate commitments could lead to a quadrupling of global demand for materials such as rare earths, cobalt, and nickel by 2040 (Findeisen & Wernert 30-06-2023). CRMs are of paramount importance for the European Union’s economy, industrial base, and strategic autonomy. These materials have a wide range of applications, contributing to the production of various goods across all supply-chain stages in Europe. The use of CRMs is also essential for the EU’s green transition goals, as these materials are necessary for technologies crucial to the EU’s green and digital transformations. This is particularly true for many technologies that support net-zero carbon emissions goals like wind turbines and electric vehicles. For example, the production of a typical electric car has been estimated to require six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car; an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant (International Energy Agency 2022). This surge in demand has led to increased concerns about supply chain vulnerabilities in western countries as many CRMs are concentrated in a small number of countries or are produced as by-products of other mining operations (U.S. Department of Energy 2023). The European Union, recognizing the economic and strategic significance of CRMs, responded by publishing a list of critical raw materials in 2011, updating it every three years to reflect changing economic importance and supply risks (Gislev & Grohol 2018), while the European Commission produced a foresight study of CRMs in 2020 for strategic technologies and sectors in the EU (Bobba et al. 2020). In 2023, the European Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) was adopted, which aims to increase and diversify the EU’s critical raw materials supply, strengthen circularity and recycling efforts, and support research and innovation in resource efficiency and the development of substitutes (European Council 2024).
- Topic:
- Economics, European Union, Geopolitics, and Critical Raw Materials (CRM)
- Political Geography:
- Europe
10. Farmer Protests Across Europe
- Author:
- Nichita Gurcov, Nicola Audibert, and Cristian Vlas
- Publication Date:
- 02-2024
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)
- Abstract:
- Farmer demands for more economic protection and less regulation have led to a surge in protests across Europe in the past thre emonths, and especially in the past three weeks. It is the largest wave since the Dutch farmers' protests against their government's plan to cut nitrogen pollution in July 2022.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Economics, Protests, Political Movements, and Farmers
- Political Geography:
- Europe