WRITTEN QUESTION E-2233/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Capital flows into Switzerland.
C 225 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 work among the unemployed should be consistent with the preventive and activation approaches in the employment guidelines (1). The public employment services play a significant role in administering and developing preventive and employability-enhancing policies overall. The array of regulations and administrative procedures applicable to work tests in each Member State is complex. An overview of some key features of different practices of the work test in selected Member States can be found in the recent report by the Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) Making work pay: the role of eligibility criteria for unemployment benefitsí (1999). The Employ- ment Observatory and its regular publications Mutual information system on employment policies (MISEP) and Community system of documentation on employment (SYSDEM (2)), operated by the Commission in collaboration with the Member States, is another useful source of detailed information on key features of current regulations and policy reforms in the Member States in the labour market and related social benefit (1) OJ C 69, 12. 3. 1999. (2) http://www. ias-berlin. de/ias/first/1english. htm. (2000/C 225 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2233/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (1 December 1999) Subject: Capital flows into Switzerland Detail the gross and net capital inflows into Switzerland, the gross flows, where possible, by source and by type of instrument purchased (bank deposit, bond, etc. ), over each of the last ten years. Has there been any noticeable change in flows as a result (a) of the Swiss debate, including the referendum, on the nature of its relationship with the EU and (b) of the Commission proposal for a withholding tax (in the savings directive)? Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission (21 January 2000) The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliamentís Secretariat the available statistics (International monetary fund (IMF) statistics, financial accounts), which show that there has been an increasing net outflow of capital from Switzerland over the period 1989 to 1998. This corresponds over the years broadly to an excess of domestic savings over domestic investments that was channelled abroad. Among the various types of flows, direct investments show a marked trend of increasing net outflows, whereas portfolio investments and short-term flows ( Other flows in the statisticsí) exhibit large fluctuations around an only modestly increasing trend. The major peaks for portfolio investments are grouped in the two periods of 1993-1994 and 1996-1997, whereas short-term net outflows peaked in, respectively, 1990 and 1998. The movements observed, as well as the underlying gross flows, coincide rather well with periods of pronounced volatility on financial markets (for instance, the currency crises in Europe and the global bond crisis during 1992-1994; the increasing international presence of Swiss banks starting from 1995; the global financial crises of 1997-1998; and in addition market movements due to the advent of economic and monetary union). Possible results from the events mentioned by the Honourable Member seem apparent only in the case of direct investment. Inward direct investments show a marked decline in 1992-1993, but have thereafter regained earlier levels. In contrast, outward direct investments started a period of pronounced increases after 1992, from having been relatively stable in the period before. These developments could perhaps to a certain extent be attributed to a change in confidence in the Swiss economy following the referendum. 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/77 Apart from the above, the year-to-year development of capital flows does not indicate any marked effects either from the referendum or from the current Community proposal for a proposal for a Council directive to ensure a minimum of effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments within the Community (1). The developments mentioned earlier, as well as more persistent trends, such as the globalisation of financial markets, all contributed to influence the capital flows and appear to dominate their variation. Still, a possible influence from Community efforts to harmonise capital income taxation could materialise eventually, once a new directive concerning capital income taxation is adopted and the public and the market can learn the precise content of the new legislation, implementation date and implications. (1) OJ C 212, 8. 7. 1998. (2000/C 225 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (1 December 1999) Subject: Replacement rates What are the typical replacement rates (benefit payments on unemployment as a percentage of earnings) for each of the Member States and, for comparison, the United States and Japan? Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (11 January 2000) The definition and management of social benefit schemes ü including their relative level of assistance, the replacement rates ü fall within the responsibility and legal competence of the Member States. Policy issues related to tax and benefit systems, and their impact on the labour market, have been given an increasing weight in the employment guidelines (1) and the broad economic policy guidelines in recent years. Some analysis and data on replacement rates for the Community, the United States and Japan have been published in The EU Economy 1999 Reviewí, Part II, Chapter 2 (2), and further analysis based on data from the European Community household panel (ECHP) will be published in the forthcoming Social Protection in Europeí report 1999. These documents deal with some of the conceptual issues involved in defining and measuring replacement rates and provide some examples of the results obtained. (1) OJ C 69, 12. 3. 1999. (2) European Economy series No 69. (2000/C 225 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2247/99 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: The Structural Funds and regional assistance (19 November 1999) 1. Will the Commission confirm that any award to a Member State of structural funding, for example under Objective 1 or Objective 2, is subject to the rule of additionality, that is that the Member State must ensure that expenditure of the funds in question by a local or regional level of government does not replace expenditure from existing budgets but is additional to them? Does this require a dedication of matching funds within locally secured budgets to match expenditure facilitated through the Structural Funds?