EACC

EEAS | Top 10: EU & US Stronger Together

Stronger Together
European Council President António Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen look forward to positive engagement with the incoming US Administration. In a rough world, the EU & US are stronger together.
The Middle East
We welcome the ceasefire and hostage release agreement in Gaza. Hostages will be reunited with their loved ones and humanitarian aid can reach civilians in Gaza. This brings hope to an entire region, where people have endured immense suffering for far too long.
California Wildfires
“The devastation in Los Angeles has been truly heartbreaking to watch. Lives, homes, memories lost. I send my thoughts and prayers to all those affected, and my gratitude to those working to keep the fires at bay.”
— EU Ambassador to the U.S. Jovita Neliupšienė
EU Presidency
Every six months an EU country takes over and helps ensure the smooth running of the legislative process. Poland will hold the presidency of the EU Council until June 30.
Western Balkans
EU Special Representative for the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue Miroslav Lajčák visited Washington in support of strong EU-US cooperation in the region.
EU Assistance to Ukraine
“Europe has provided nearly 134 billion euros of support to Ukraine – and more will come. Just like the brave Ukrainian resistance, our support will be steadfast.”
—European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen
AI Chip Exports
We are concerned about the US measures restricting access to advanced AI chip exports for selected EU Member States. Learn more about the ways the EU is jointly boosting its economic security.
China and Public Procurement
China’s public procurement market for medical devices presents clear evidence of limiting access of EU medical devices producers to its government contracts in an unfair and discriminatory way.
Consumer Electronics Show
In Nevada, the European Pavilion featured 15 innovative companies from across Europe that presented their pioneering technology.
Job Opening
Join us to work on a key EU priority: digital transformation. Think artificial intelligence, data governance, emerging tech, and more. Application Deadline: January 30.
 
Compliments of the European External Action ServiceThe post EEAS | Top 10: EU & US Stronger Together first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

IMF | As One Cycle Ends, Another Begins Amid Growing Divergence

Blog post by Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas | We project global growth will remain steady at 3.3 percent this year and next, broadly aligned with potential growth that has substantially weakened since before the pandemic. Inflation is declining, to 4.2 percent this year and 3.5 percent next year, in a return to central bank targets that will allow further normalization of monetary policy. This will help draw to a close the global disruptions of recent years, including the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which precipitated the largest inflation surge in four decades.

Though the global growth outlook is broadly unchanged from October, divergences across countries are widening. Among advanced economies, the United States is stronger than previously projected on continued strength in domestic demand. We have raised our growth projection for the US this year by 0.5 percentage point, to 2.7 percent.
Growth in the euro area, by contrast, is likely to increase only modestly, to 1 percent from 0.8 percent in 2024. Headwinds include weak momentum, especially in manufacturing, low consumer confidence, and the persistence of a negative energy price shock. European gas prices remain about five times as high as in the United States, versus twice as high before the pandemic.

In emerging market economies, growth projections are broadly unchanged, at 4.2 percent and 4.3 percent this year and next. Elevated trade and policy uncertainty is contributing to anemic demand in many countries, but economic activity is likely to pick up as this uncertainty recedes. This includes China, where we now project 4.5 percent growth next year, up 0.4 percentage point from our prior forecast.
Some divergence between large economies has been cyclical, with the US economy operating above its potential while Europe and China are below. Under current policies, this cyclical divergence will dissipate. But the divergence between the US and Europe is more due to structural factors, and the disconnect will linger if these are left unaddressed. It reflects persistently stronger US productivity growth, particularly but not exclusively in the technology sector, linked to a more favorable business environment and deeper capital markets. Over time, this translates into higher returns on US investment, increased inbound capital flows, a stronger dollar and US living standards pulling away from those of other advanced economies. For China, it is notable that potential growth is now more like that of other emerging market economies.
Economic policy uncertainty is elevated, with many governments newly elected in 2024. Our projections incorporate recent market developments and the impact of heightened trade policy uncertainty, assumed to be temporary, but refrain from making assumptions about potential policy changes that are currently under public debate.

In the near term, a constellation of risks could further exacerbate these divergences. European economies could slow more than anticipated, especially if investors grow more concerned about public debt sustainability in more vulnerable countries. The main risk is that euro area monetary and fiscal policy could simultaneously run out of room if weaker economic activity pushes interest rates back toward the effective lower bound just as insufficient fiscal consolidation raises risk premia, in turn further constraining fiscal policy. In China, should fiscal and monetary measures prove insufficient to address domestic weakness, the economy is at risk of a debt-deflation stagnation trap, where falling prices raise the real value of debt, undermining activity further. The sharp decline in Chinese government bond yields, seen as haven for local investors, shows rising investor concern. Both in China and Europe, these factors could lower inflation and economic growth.
By contrast, while many of the policy shifts under the incoming US administration are hard to quantify precisely, they are likely to push inflation higher in the near term relative to our baseline. Some indicated policies, such as looser fiscal policy or deregulation efforts, would stimulate aggregate demand and increase inflation in the near term, as spending and investment increase immediately. Other policies, such as higher tariffs or immigration curbs, will play out like negative supply shocks, reducing output and adding to price pressures.
A combination of surging demand and shrinking supply would likely reignite US price pressures, though the effect on economic output in the near term would be ambiguous. Higher inflation would prevent the Federal Reserve from cutting interest rates and could even require rate hikes that would in turn strengthen the dollar and widen US external deficits. The combination of tighter US monetary policy and a stronger dollar would tighten financial conditions, especially for emerging markets and developing economies. Investors already anticipate such an outcome, with the US dollar gaining around 4 percent since the November election.
Overall, these near-term risks could lead to further divergence across economies. In the medium term, about five years, the positive effects of the US fiscal shock may dissipate and could even reverse if fiscal vulnerabilities increase. Deregulation efforts can boost potential growth in the medium term if they remove red tape and stimulate innovation. However, there is a risk that excessive deregulation could also weaken financial safeguards and increase financial vulnerabilities, putting the US economy on a dangerous boom-bust path. Medium-term risks to economic output would be heightened by restrictive trade policies and stricter migration limits.
Renewed inflation pressures, should they arise so soon after the recent surge, could well de-anchor inflation expectations this time around, as people and businesses are now much more vigilant about protecting their real income and profitability. Inflation expectations are further away from central bank targets than in 2017–21, which suggests increased risks of higher inflation. In this environment, monetary policy may need to be more agile and proactive to prevent expectations from de-anchoring, while macro-financial policies will need to remain vigilant to avoid a buildup of financial risks.

The issue is likely to be exacerbated for emerging market economies, given the passthrough of dollar exchange rates to domestic prices and the effects of weaker domestic growth in China. In most cases, the appropriate policy response in emerging market economies will be to let currencies depreciate as needed while adjusting monetary policy to achieve price stability. However, in cases where inflation dynamics have become clearly unanchored or where there are financial stability risks, capital flow management and foreign exchange interventions could help, as long as these are not a substitute for necessary macroeconomic adjustments, in line with the IMF’s Integrated Policy Framework.
For several countries, fiscal policy efforts have been delayed or insufficient to stabilize debt dynamics. It is now urgent to restore fiscal sustainability before it is too late and to build sufficient buffers to address future shocks that could be sizable and recurrent. Additional delays could trigger a worrying spiral where borrowing costs keep rising as markets lose confidence, further increasing adjustment needs. Recent strains in Brazil’s financial markets, like the reaction to the UK’s September 2022 mini-budget, underscore how funding conditions can deteriorate suddenly.
While any sizable fiscal consolidation is bound to weigh on economic activity, countries should take special care to preserve growth as much as possible along the consolidation path, for instance by focusing the adjustment on reducing untargeted transfers or subsidies rather than government investment spending. To achieve this—and help overcome persistent structural differences driving growth divergences—there should be renewed focus on ambitious structural reforms to directly boost growth. These include targeted reforms to better allocate resources, increase government revenues, attract more capital, and foster innovation and competition.
Finally, additional efforts should be made to strengthen and improve our multilateral institutions to help unlock a richer, more resilient, and sustainable global economy. Unilateral policies that distort competition—such as tariffs, nontariff barriers, or subsidies—rarely improve domestic prospects durably. They are unlikely to ameliorate external imbalances and may instead hurt trading partners, spur retaliation, and leave every country worse off.

 
Compliments of the International Monetary FundThe post IMF | As One Cycle Ends, Another Begins Amid Growing Divergence first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

DoC | U.S. Department of Commerce Announces $1.4 Billion in Final Awards to Support the Next Generation of U.S. Semiconductor Advanced Packaging

Today, the U.S. Department of Commerce has announced that CHIPS National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program (NAPMP) has finalized $1.4 billion in award funding to bolster U.S. leadership in advanced packaging and enable new technologies to be validated and transitioned at scale to U.S. manufacturing. These awards will help establish a self-sustaining, high-volume, domestic, advanced packaging industry where advanced node chips are both manufactured and packaged in the United States.   
These awards include:

A total of $300 million under the CHIPS NAPMP’s first Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for advanced substrates and material research to Absolics Inc., Applied Materials Inc., and Arizona State University. This follows the previously announced intent to enter negotiations on November 21, 2024.

$1.1 billion to Natcast to operate the advanced packaging capabilities of the CHIPS for America NSTC Prototyping and NAPMP Advanced Packaging Piloting Facility (PPF). This follows the previously announced CHIPS R&D Facilities Model on July 12, 2024, and planned site selection for the PPF on January 6, 2025.

“Bolstering our advanced packaging capabilities is key to America remaining a global leader in leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. “These CHIPS for America investments and CHIPS research and development flagship facilities will strengthen our end-to-end semiconductor ecosystem and help close the gap between invention and commercialization to ensure the United States is a global leader in semiconductor innovation and manufacturing.”
Awardees
Absolics, Inc. in Covington, Georgia, $100 million in direct funding: This award will support Absolics’ Substrate and Materials Advanced Research and Technology (SMART) Packaging Program and help build a glass-core packaging ecosystem. Absolics’ glass substrates will be used as an important advanced packaging technology to increase the performance of leading-edge chips for artificial intelligence (AI), high-performance compute and data centers by reducing power consumption and system complexity. Learn more about the CHIPS NAPMP Materials and Substrates award here.
Applied Materials, Inc. in Santa Clara, California, $100 million in direct funding: This project will develop and scale a disruptive silicon-core substrate technology for next-generation advanced packaging and 3D heterogeneous integration. Applied Materials’ silicon-core substrate technology has the potential to advance America’s leadership in advanced packaging and help catalyze an ecosystem to develop and build next-generation energy-efficient artificial intelligence (AI) and high-performance computing systems in the U.S. Learn more about the CHIPS NAPMP Materials and Substrates award here.
Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, $100 million in direct funding: The award will support the development of the next generation of microelectronics packaging through fan-out-wafer-level-processing (FOWLP). Centered at ASU Advanced Electronics and Photonics Core Facility, this project supports ASU’s research in exploring the commercial viability of 300 mm wafer-level and 600 mm panel-level manufacturing, a technology that does not exist as a commercial capability in the U.S. today. Learn more about the CHIPS NAPMP Materials and Substrates award here.
Natcast’s Advanced Packaging Facility in Tempe, Arizona, $1.1 billion in direct funding: The award will enable Natcast to operate and manage the CHIPS NAPMP advanced packaging capabilities that will be co-located with NSTC prototyping capabilities at the recently announced CHIPS for America NSTC Prototyping and NAPMP Piloting Facility (PPF) in Tempe, Arizona. Key packaging capabilities funded by this award are expected to include a baseline advanced packaging piloting line to enable the development and commercialization of new advanced packaging processes. The CHIPS for America PPF will feature cutting-edge capabilities to bridge the gap between laboratory research and full-scale semiconductor production. This facility will enable researchers and industry leaders to develop and test new materials, devices, and advanced packaging solutions in a state-of-the-art R&D environment. Learn more about this CHIPS NAPMP award here.
About CHIPS for America
CHIPS for America investments stimulate private sector investment, create good-paying jobs, make more in the United States, and revitalize communities left behind. CHIPS for America includes the CHIPS Program Office, responsible for manufacturing incentives, and the CHIPS Research and Development (R&D) Office, responsible for R&D programs. Both offices sit within the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) at the Department of Commerce. NIST promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. NIST is uniquely positioned to successfully administer the CHIPS for America program because of the bureau’s strong relationships with U.S. industries, its deep understanding of the semiconductor ecosystem, and its reputation as fair and trusted. Visit https://www.chips.gov to learn more.
 
Compliments of the United States Department of CommerceThe post DoC | U.S. Department of Commerce Announces $1.4 Billion in Final Awards to Support the Next Generation of U.S. Semiconductor Advanced Packaging first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

OECD | Pillar One Update from the Co-Chairs of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS

Following our update in May 2024, we want to report on the progress made by the Inclusive Framework on BEPS (IF) in the development of a final package for Pillar One of the Two‐Pillar Solution to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy agreed in October 2021. This package includes two components: a text of the Multilateral Convention (MLC) to implement Amount A and a framework for Amount B.
Amount A
Amount A introduces a system for a coordinated allocation of taxing rights to market jurisdictions with respect to a defined portion of the residual profits of the largest and most profitable MNEs. It is designed to be a sustainable, coordinated reform of the international tax system that responds to the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy, reinforces stability and certainty for taxpayers, and provides for the withdrawal and standstill of Digital Services Taxes (DSTs) and Relevant Similar Measures (RSM) with respect to all companies.
After several years of negotiations within an Inclusive Framework consisting of more than 140 members, as well as numerous consultations with stakeholders, we were able to release in October 2023 a text of the MLC, along with the accompanying Explanatory Statement (ES) and the Understanding on the Application of Certainty for Amount A of Pillar One (UAC), which reflected the significant progress achieved at that time and indicated in footnotes the handful of specific issues where different views remained between members.
Further negotiations in the first half of 2024, informed by feedback from domestic consultations following the release of the text, led to the successful resolution of the issues standing in the way of adoption of the text. (1) Specifically, the MLC text was revised to:

Clarify the definition of DSTs and RSMs, including with respect to the application of the de facto ring-fencing criteria;
Provide an election for common application of the MLC to a non-State jurisdiction and the State responsible for its international relations, subject to certain guardrails and measures to limit the additional elimination of double tax obligations that might fall on other States as a result of such an election; and
Provide further modifications within the Marketing and Distribution Profit Safe Harbour (MDSH) when calculating the excess profit of a Multinational Enterprise in a market jurisdiction with lower income levels, including a higher return on revenue (ROR) metric and higher deductions (so-called “reduction factors”) within the withholding tax upward adjustment mechanism.

In June, the revised MLC text was submitted to the Inclusive Framework for adoption. Members were informed that, in line with international law, agreement to adopt the final text does not create an obligation to sign it, with the decision to sign the text being a separate decision for jurisdictions and one that might follow specific domestic procedures. Only one member objected to the text’s adoption, citing the absence of consensus having been reached on the Amount B Framework, as set out below, and citing the fact that another member’s agreement to the adoption of the text was accompanied by a reservation on whether or not it would sign as a result of it not being in a position to support certain aspects. The text has remained stable since that point with the negotiations having been focused on resolving the outstanding issues with the Amount B Framework.
Amount B
Amount B is a simplified and streamlined approach to the application of the arm’s length principle to baseline marketing and distribution activities, with a particular focus on the needs of low-capacity countries.
In February 2024, an optional Amount B was incorporated into the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (“TPG”) allowing jurisdictions, including non-IF members, to elect to implement the simplified and streamlined approach to baseline marketing and distribution activities in their jurisdiction. Members of the IF also made a commitment to respect outcomes determined under that approach where the approach is applied by “covered jurisdictions”, in recognition of their particular needs and challenges – in some covered jurisdictions, Amount B is expected to address between 30-70% of all current transfer pricing disputes.
Building on that optional model, discussions have continued on a framework under which jurisdictions that become parties to the MLC would, from the point the MLC enters into effect, be required to apply Amount B to local taxpayers performing in-country baseline marketing and distribution activities where the transaction is covered by an income tax treaty in force with another IF member jurisdiction that is also a Party to the MLC. Jurisdictions would also be required to respect outcomes determined under Amount B when applied by other parties to the MLC with which an income tax treaty is in force (the “Amount B Framework”).
While acknowledging the significant tax certainty benefits already provided to in-scope groups through the MLC – including the availability of robust binding dispute resolution for a broad range of related transfer pricing and profit attribution disputes and a framework for the withdrawal and standstill of DSTs and RSMs – some members have taken the position that the Amount B Framework is an essential part of the overall Pillar 1 package.
Significant work has been undertaken on the detailed parameters of the Amount B Framework with only a few outstanding issues remaining amongst certain jurisdictions, as follows:
a. How to appropriately reflect the interdependence between the MLC and Amount B;
b. The detailed terms of an agreed filter designed to screen out jurisdictions that account for a low number of disputes relating to transactions of the type that Amount B is intended to address;
c. The terms of an Optional Qualitative Test that certain jurisdictions have argued is needed, in addition to the existing filters, to ensure that above-baseline transactions expected to generate benefits that significantly exceed those typically derived from core distribution functions do not fall within scope; and
d. How to address the concerns of certain jurisdictions that consider that the pricing matrix delivers inappropriate outcomes for taxpayers performing baseline marketing and distribution activities in their respective jurisdictions.
Discussions on the first three items are generally well advanced, with the focus of those discussions now being on procedural questions and/or the contours of tests and their precise drafting. With respect to the fourth item, various solutions have been put forward to bridge the different positions of IF members, including a solution that would allow the concerned IF members to limit the application of Amount B to distributors generating revenues below a threshold, with an alternative fast-track early certainty mechanism made available for distributors generating revenues above it. (2) Despite constructive discussions on these solutions, we have yet to find a path forward that has the support of all members, and our focus remains on how outstanding concerns can be addressed as a part of a solution that is able to achieve consensus.
We would like to commend all IF members for their continued dedication and willingness to compromise in progressing Pillar One to this stage. We remain committed to do our utmost to help bridge the last few remaining issues relating to the Amount B Framework in order to secure IF agreement on the Pillar One package and remain committed to ensuring that the IF is prepared to support swift implementation once that agreement is reached.
 
Notes:
1 Adoption is the formal act through which the form and content of a treaty is established.
2 This solution would also allow for bilateral framework agreements to be entered into between jurisdictions as an alternative.
 
Compliments of The Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentThe post OECD | Pillar One Update from the Co-Chairs of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

IMF | Top Five Trends in the Role of the Accounting Profession on Public Finances in 2025

By Srinivas Gurazada | Historically, accountants have been perceived as mere ‘bookkeepers’ who record vouchers and prepare budget execution statements of government. Accounting was seen as a technical responsibility of the Accountant General’s office, which prepares financial statements, and the Auditor General, who conducts audits. This was considered a ‘control formality’ with limited implications for the rest of the government or citizens. However, the past two decades have seen significant changes to this perception. Here are five top trends on the emerging role of the accounting profession in the public sector, which can be transformative in 2025.
1. Sustainability Reporting in the Public Sector
With the support of the World Bank, the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) in 2024 took the landmark decision to issue the first set of draft Sustainability Reporting Standards (SRS) dealing with Climate-Related Disclosures. While the full suite of public sector SRS may take up to a decade, the ball is set rolling. For the first time, public-sector accountants have taken the challenge of moving outside their comfort zone of traditional accounting and auditing.
There remain several unanswered questions, from the need for increased capacity within the accounting profession to deal with sustainability to harmonization with several other sustainability reporting approaches, including IFRS Sustainability. Supreme Audit Institutions have already initiated discussions on the role of external audit in sustainability reporting through the Global Summit of SAIs. The year 2025 is likely to be a watershed year through public consultation on draft SRS issued by IPSASB and the broader alignment of expectations, thereby significantly scaling up the responsibilities of the accounting profession in the public sector.
2. Accounting Information as the Fulcrum of Public Financial Management
Public Financial Management (PFM) is one of the most interdisciplinary professions. Accountants, economists, public policy experts, and administrators in governments play a key role in managing public finances. Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA), the gold standard measuring framework for PFM, uses 31 indicators further segregated into 94 dimensions. Accounting and Reporting (Pillar VI) of the PEFA framework covers three Performance Indicators (PI) – PI 27 on ‘Financial data integrity,’ PI 28 on ‘In-year budget reporting,’ and PI 29 on ‘Annual Financial Statements,’ which are directly the responsibility of public sector accounting. Most of the other dimensions of PEFA either draw from accounting information or are influenced by government accounting, and the role of public accountants is likely to expand.
3. Balance Sheet Approach to Public Finances
Dust seems to have settled over two decades of debate over the merits of government accounting moving from a cash to an accrual basis. It is forecasted that by 2025, the number of countries reporting on an accrual basis will reach 50%. If achieved, this change will be a watershed moment for accounting reforms fundamentally influencing government policy decisions. Accrual accounting provides a complete picture of revenues, expenditure, assets, and liabilities, enabling government and all stakeholders to consider intergenerational equity in present-day policy making. In making the transition to accrual accounting, countries will be able to draw on the full suite of accrual basis international standards issued by IPSAS, guidance under pathways to accrual accounting, as well as international development partners support.
4. Artificial Intelligence in Public Sector Accounting
The past two decades have seen countries make rapid strides in the implementation of GovTech solutions in PFM. These developments include IFMIS / FMIS solutions, Debt Management Systems, eProcurement systems, and Public Investment Management systems. Computer Assisted Audit Tools (CAATs) and Audit Management Systems enable Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) to conduct audits. GovTech solutions in PFM are large transaction processing systems, which can benefit significantly from leveraging AI. A recent OECD paper on AI in PFM notes, “Over time, and with the quality of data increasing, new layers of technology have been added (to PFM): data analytics, BI tools, RPA, and more recently AI technologies.”
The year 2025 is likely to see the emergence of trends where several routine public sector accounting and auditing tasks move from humans to machines, enhancing the role of public sector accountants to value-added functions. These could range from predictive analysis on the impact of budget decisions on service delivery, perpetual forecasting of balance sheets, consolidation of accounts of various levels of government for whole of government balance sheets, and identification of red flags and risks of wastage, fraud, and corruption.
5. Collaboration between IFAC, PAOs, and Development Partners
MOSAIC (Memorandum of Understanding to Strengthen Accountancy and Improve Collaboration) sets out the basis for improving cooperation and collaboration between IFAC, international donors, and the international development community. A high-level meeting, in September  2024 in Bucharest, Romania, co-chaired by the World Bank and PAODC in September 2024 in Bucharest, Romania, took landmark decisions to scale up the impact of MOSAIC as a cornerstone for a unified global approach to enhance the capacity of professional accountancy organizations (PAOs) and elevate the quality of financial management systems in emerging economies. This initiative is expected to see a dramatic increase in the scale and impact of activities in the public sector.
In conclusion, 2025 will witness a significantly greater role for the accounting profession. It can better equip itself for this role through enhanced collaboration with all stakeholders and improvements in the curriculum of professional accounting qualifications and university courses, with a greater emphasis on government accounting and auditing. This proactive approach will ensure that accountants are well-prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, ultimately contributing to more robust and transparent PFM systems globally.
 
Compliments of the International Monetary FundThe post IMF | Top Five Trends in the Role of the Accounting Profession on Public Finances in 2025 first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

ECB | Exploring an uncertain future with the help of scenarios

Blog post by Matteo Ciccarelli, Matthieu Darracq Pariès, Bettina Landau and João Sousa | Central banks project future developments based on past data patterns and a set of assumptions. Crises can change economic structures, complicating this forecasting. The ECB Blog explains how scenario, risk and sensitivity analyses address the new uncertainty.
We use economic models and data patterns from the past to project the future. In normal times, assessing what conditions will be like in the near future can be a relatively “straightforward” task. When inflation and growth are stable and predictable our central forecast, or baseline projection, proves to be reliable. However, recent crises might have caused structural changes, which would introduce analytical uncertainty, in addition to the increased general uncertainty surrounding projections. In response, the ECB has been upgrading the tools and analyses we use in our staff macroeconomic projections, which form an integral part of our economic forecasting. One of these, scenario analysis, is particularly important in the light of a world of increasing uncertainty and change.
So, what do we mean by scenario analysis?
We use three types of additional checks to enhance our standard baseline forecasting: sensitivity analysis, risk analysis, and scenario analysis. All of them, just like our standard forecast, are a combination of two elements: the use of models and expert judgement. The three additional checks in particular aim to show possible deviations from the “normal”, or most likely, forecast. In this sense they complement our baseline projection with “what if” assessments.
First, the sensitivity analysis focuses on how changes in individual factors, such as a huge change in energy prices or a different exchange rate path, might affect economic variables like economic activity and inflation. By altering one variable at a time, models can evaluate the potential impact of uncertain assumptions on the baseline.
Second, risk analysis looks at how likely it is that economic developments will deviate from the baseline. In theory, the baseline projection would correspond to the mode (i.e. the most-likely outcome) of a “predictive distribution”, while events further away from the mode are less likely to occur. The probability distribution may also show asymmetry to the “right” or to the “left” (see Figure 1), depending on the balance of risks. This asymmetry – which may depend on various quantifiable or only qualitative risk factors – represents the risk balance around the projection. The risk balance helps to interpret projections and decide about monetary policy in periods of heightened uncertainty. The risk analysis tells us to which side deviations from the baseline are more likely. This risk distribution can be estimated by resorting to various models and tools.

Chart 1
Two probability distributions around the same 2% inflation baseline

Sources: Using an analogy to the literature on numerical regarding gaussian quadrature, see Miller, A.C. and T. Rice, (1983), “Discrete Approximations of Probability Distributions”, Management Science, Vol. 29, No. 3.

Finally, the scenario analysis addresses the even more complex “what if” questions. Specifically, it examines the consequences of hypothetical events or economic conditions that deviate from the baseline. For the sensitivity analysis we alter individual factors, while for the scenario analysis the approach is wider and more holistic. The spectrum ranges from major economic and political events – like wars, financial crises, or global energy shocks – to more specific situations like trade tariffs or housing market adjustments, which can affect several factors at the same time.
A typical scenario combines two broad sets of changes from the baseline: i) additional shocks over the projection horizon, and ii) changing features of the macroeconomic propagation mechanism. The shocks driving the scenarios can come from many different directions.
They may stem from the international environment of the euro area – for example through commodity prices, exchange rates or global trade. Or they can be driven by domestic economic conditions – such as financing conditions, household spending, or firms’ price-setting. Another driver might be supply-side fundamentals of the euro area economy – for example increases in productivity related to artificial intelligence.
In addition to the type and magnitude of a shock, scenarios may also think through different future developments by altering how the economy reacts to the shocks. For instance, wages and prices can adjust more quickly to a surge in the cost of energy than to small changes. Or households may save more during times of high uncertainty, or the financial sector could amplify a shock if credit constraints arise. Altogether, a scenario is a blend of various factors which evaluates the impact of economic events on the projection baseline.
How do scenarios relate to a forecast distribution and risk analysis? The economic literature shows that you can reasonably approximate the forecast distributions by resorting to a small number of scenarios (see Figure 1). For instance, a symmetric forecast distribution can be represented by one downside and one upside scenario with equal probabilities. More complex distributions may require multiple scenarios to capture high-impact, low-probability events, or secondary modes of the distribution as shown in Figure 1. This approach helps understand the range of possible outcomes and the associated risks. The advantage over the risk distribution is that scenarios provide a narrative for specific risk events and their impact on the economy instead of a simple probability distribution.
Assuming that the forecast distribution is quantifiable (based on given models) and interpretable as a probability distribution, scenarios can be used to explore the main properties of this distribution.
What scenario analysis does the ECB do?
The ECB progressively refines its analyses, particularly in response to significant economic events. In the past we regularly published forecast ranges and sensitivity analyses, and only occasionally included ad-hoc scenarios related to international shocks. However, the COVID-19 pandemic marked a turning point in our approach. During this highly uncertain period we used different scenarios to reflect varying assumptions about the pandemic’s progression. That provided insight into what was driving changes and supported discussing different options for action.
More recently, scenarios have been instrumental in assessing the impact of geopolitical tensions, such as the war in Ukraine and potential conflicts in the Middle East. For instance, the ECB developed scenarios to evaluate the effects of the Ukraine war and rising energy prices on inflation. This provided insights where standard sensitivity failed to account for extreme developments (Figure 2, panel a). The war in Ukraine and subsequent rises in energy prices led to a significant and unexpected surge in inflation. This could not have been foreseen in the central projections, given their conditionality on oil and gas price futures as expected by markets and other more standard assumptions. Nor could it have been foreseen by sensitivity analysis (Figure 2, panel b). Scenario analyses, however, did foresee this. Specifically, the assessment of scenarios helped by pointing to the risk of much stronger increases in energy commodity prices and consequently of much higher inflation in 2022 (the Ukraine war scenario published in March 2022 foresaw already 7% inflation in 2022, and around 8% in the June and September rounds). In this respect, the inflation scenario was useful to inform the ECB’s policy and its public communication.
Projections don’t usually look at the probability of “Black Swan” events – these are events which are very unlikely, but would have a huge impact – used, for example, in bank stress testing. This is an aspect that may deserve further attention, but it is unclear what the added value of such scenarios for monetary policy making is, unless there is also extreme uncertainty as, for example, during the pandemic.

Chart 2
Baseline projection, alternative scenarios and sensitivity analysis for inflation in 2022

Sources: ECB/Eurosystem staff projections and ECB staff calculation.
Notes: The ranges surrounding the respective baseline refer to a measure of uncertainty based on past projection errors, after adjustment for outliers, showing the 90% probability that the outcome of HICP inflation will fall within this interval. Panel a): Max and Min refer to the highest and lowest outcome from various scenarios including scenarios on the war in Ukraine, higher inflation expectations, real wage catch up etc. Panel b) Max and Min refer to the highest and lowest outcome from sensitivity analyses related to energy prices, exchange rates and market interest rates.

Scenario analysis: an invaluable complementary tool
Our experience shows that scenario analyses play an important role in macroeconomic projections by complementing aspects that are not included in the baseline forecasts. Together with sensitivity and risk analysis, they provide a robust toolkit to prepare for contingency or emergency planning and to give policymakers courses of action for alternative futures, and therefore better input to fulfil their mandate.
The views expressed in each blog entry are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the European Central Bank and the Eurosystem.
Check out The ECB Blog and subscribe for future posts.
 
Compliments of the European Central BankThe post ECB | Exploring an uncertain future with the help of scenarios first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

FSB | The Relevance of Transition Plans for Financial Stability

Transition plans hold potential for enhancing financial stability assessments by providing forward-looking information that can be useful to measure and monitor climate-related risks.
This report considers the role that financial and non-financial firms’ transition plans can play for financial stability assessments, in particular as a source of information for monitoring climate-related financial risks and vulnerabilities, and as a tool for helping to address some of those risks.
Climate transition planning and the resulting outputs – transition plans – have seen increased interest in recent years as a tool for firms to articulate their strategies and manage climate risks. Transition plans are increasingly being used by shareholders, investors and regulators to be informed of a company’s climate strategy and approaches to net zero transition.
Transition planning and transition plans can help address climate-related financial risks through three channels:

They facilitate firms’ strategy setting, which contributes to better risk management.
They help inform investment decisions.
They can support authorities’ macro-monitoring of transition and physical risks both in the financial system and the real economy.

Climate transition plans hold potential for enhancing financial stability, as they provide forward-looking information that can be useful to measure and monitor climate-related financial risks at micro- and macro-levels. However, certain conditions need to be met to enable wider use of transition plans for financial stability purposes. These include enhancing the coverage, transparency, credibility, comparability and availability of information in those plans.
Broader adoption of transition plans and continued efforts towards standardisation, including ongoing and planned work by international organisations and standard-setters, are key to making transition plans practically usable for financial stability and macroprudential purposes.

 
Compliments of the Financial Stability BoardThe post FSB | The Relevance of Transition Plans for Financial Stability first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

DoC | Prioritizing Space Commerce Within the Commerce Department

Today, the Department of Commerce Office of Space Commerce published a report on the department’s space commerce accomplishments under the Biden-Harris Administration. 
A message from Don Graves, Deputy Secretary of Commerce
Under the Biden-Harris Administration, the Department of Commerce has taken many concrete actions to promote the growth and competitiveness of the U.S. commercial space sector. The Department’s strategic objective to “advance U.S. leadership in the global commercial space industry” makes the lives of American citizens easier every day. Critical space services – from communications and navigation to precision agriculture and disaster preparedness–support 347,000 private-sector jobs that accounted for $131.8 billion (0.5 percent) of our GDP in 2022.
Throughout the Administration, we have grown commercial partnerships and trade, broadened the workforce, increased industry participation, and protected U.S. satellite interests. All the while, the Department continued to operate its own space systems to observe and predict critical weather phenomena. The best is ahead for this vibrant American industry, and the Department of Commerce will continue to contribute to its growth and success.
Prioritized Space Commerce Within the Department
To focus the Department on space, Deputy Secretary Don Graves established a Commercial Space Coordinating Committee that regularly engaged the bureau heads in space discussions. The Department consolidated and uplifted offices that advocate for and enable the space industry. The Office of Space Commerce (OSC) moved into the front office of NOAA, raising its profile within the Department to better support the Under Secretary and Office of the Secretary. The Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs office that authorizes U.S. imaging satellites merged into OSC. NOAA also established an independent Advisory Committee on Excellence in Space (ACES) providing expert views from industry stakeholders on policy, regulatory, and operational issues.
Streamlined Space Regulations
The Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) provided significant regulatory relief to the U.S. space industry, particularly when exporting spacecraft and related items to U.S. allies and partners by streamlining relevant export controls. BIS worked with the State Department to release draft rules that promise even further streamlining for space exporters in 2025. Meanwhile, NOAA implemented streamlined procedures for its licensing of commercial remote sensing satellites, reducing approval timelines to an average of 21 days. NOAA began developing an online portal to further improve license processing. NOAA eliminated dozens of conditions from its licenses that had previously restricted U.S. remote sensing firms from operating at their full capability. Each regulatory move improved U.S. industry’s ability to compete for global business.
In an effort to provide regulatory certainty for future space commerce, the Department participated in the development of the Administration’s U.S. Novel Space Activities Authorization and Supervision Framework and related legislation.
Established a Modern Space Traffic Safety System
The Department made major strides to address problems of space safety and sustainability as Earth’s orbits become increasingly congested with traffic and hazardous debris. In September 2024, NOAA’s Traffic Coordination System for Space (TraCSS) entered service for an initial set of users representing about 1,000 operational satellites. TraCSS is a modern, cloud-based IT system providing safety notifications of potential in-space collisions to satellite operators.
To reach this point, the Department spent years collaborating with the Department of Defense (DoD), which has provided such notifications since the 2000s but is migrating this responsibility to DOC. NOAA’s OSC conducted a series of pilots and pathfinder projects with commercial space situational awareness (SSA) companies to inform the development of TraCSS, which is designed to leverage commercial data, software, and services. In support of the emerging partnership between TraCSS and the private sector, OSC contracted with commercial firms to establish the cloud infrastructure for TraCSS, develop the software backbone, and provide a public website and interface. OSC regularly engaged with stakeholders through multiple RFIs, public listening sessions, and CEO roundtables to receive feedback and ensure TraCSS meets user needs.
Initiated Global Dialogue on Space Traffic Coordination
The Department promoted international coordination to minimize the risk of conflicting space traffic safety information. In April 2024, OSC released its vision for Global Space Situational Awareness Coordination of a global, coordinated system of SSA providers, with a series of national or regional hubs providing SSA information and services to spacecraft operators. To take initial steps toward international SSA coordination, the OSC conducted a joint analysis with the European Union Space Surveillance and Tracking (EU SST) program to compare the SSA services provided by TraCSS and EU SST, respectively, and published the results at the 2024 Advanced Maui Optical Surveillance (AMOS) Conference.
Encouraged International Space Business Partnerships & Trade
The Department organized and led international commercial space dialogues with multiple nations to promote business partnerships and strengthen diplomatic ties. The list of nations engaged includes Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, Philippines, Republic of Korea, and Singapore, as well as nations from the African Union.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) promoted U.S. aerospace trade interests as the industry faced mounting competition from abroad. During 2021-2024, ITA’s Advocacy Center managed dozens of active space-related cases and supported contract wins with a total value of billions of dollars, supporting tens of thousands of U.S. jobs. ITA organized panels at its annual SelectUSA Investment Summit to encourage foreign investment in the U.S. space industry.
Measured the U.S. Space Economy
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) published a series of annual statistics quantifying the U.S. space economy in terms of contributions to GPD, employment, and other key measures. These data publications provided a definitive baseline and trends to inform decision makers in government and industry. BEA held a workshop in 2024 to receive stakeholder feedback for improving its statistical model. To provide actionable insights into the health of the U.S. space supply chain, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) conducted a civil space industrial base assessment, collecting data from over 1,700 U.S. space companies and suppliers. To analyze trends in commercial space innovation, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) conducted a review of space-related patents.
Supported Space-Related Intellectual Property
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) supported commercial space innovation through stakeholder initiatives aimed at reducing barriers to the intellectual property landscape. These included a working group on accelerating commercial space innovation, IP seminars at the 2023 Paris Airshow, and an international dialogue focused on the intersection of IP and the expanding commercial space sector. The dialogue provided in-depth discussion of the convergence of IP and space law, as well as challenges and opportunities for commercial space startups and small/medium-sized enterprises.
Advanced Cybersecurity for Space Systems
To enhance the resiliency of U.S. commercial space systems, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued guidelines applying the NIST Cybersecurity Framework to commercial satellite operations, satellite ground segments, hybrid satellite networks, and positioning, navigation, and timing systems. NIST also worked with other agencies to advance zero-trust architecture implementation. NIST and NOAA/OSC co-hosted a series of symposia to increase the space community’s awareness of cyber risks and solutions.
Promoted Technical Standards for Space Development
NIST and NOAA/OSC actively participated in working groups of international standards bodies to develop and promulgate technical standards for space activities. These include standards for space traffic coordination, which inform the data standards for OSC’s TraCSS. In 2024, NIST hosted/co-hosted a series of international space standards workshops in Washington that brought together experts in space communications and navigation to develop a multi-national approach to interoperability, including on and around the Moon.
Promoted Satellite Spectrum Access and Connectivity
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) promoted and enabled space-based connectivity in the United States and globally. At the 2023 World Radiocommunication Conference of the International Telecommunications Union, NTIA helped advance the global standing of the U.S. satellite and space industries by securing favorable outcomes on spectrum access, orbital access, and space sustainability. NTIA also paved the way for growth in the commercial space sector by successfully coordinating more than 1,000 FCC applications for satellites, earth stations, launches, and other space uses, thereby allowing both federal and commercial missions to thrive.
Operated Environmental Satellites to Protect the Public and Monitor Earth
As the number and intensity of severe weather events reached record highs, NOAA’s satellites collected environmental observations that helped forecasters make predictions that saved lives and property. The satellite data was vital to tracking hurricanes and other severe storms, droughts, fires, volcanic eruptions, floods, and space weather. NOAA launched two next-generation GOES-R Series satellites and the NOAA-21 polar-orbiting satellite, greatly improving the precision of its monitoring and forecasts to protect not only the public, but also ecosystems such as coral reefs. NOAA achieved significant milestones in its design and acquisition of future satellite capabilities, including the GeoXO system, QuickSounder project, Space Weather Next L5 and L1 Series projects, and Space Weather Follow-On mission. NOAA also developed new AI tools to detect fires from satellite data, helping reduce response times for fire managers.
Fostered Diversity and Opportunity in the Space Industry
The Department engaged in a number of initiatives intended to broaden participation in the space industry workforce and supplier base in order to sustain the rapid growth of the U.S. space economy. The Department collaborated with multiple organizations focused on increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the space community. Deputy Secretary Don Graves hosted a Women’s History Month event celebrating women in space commerce, participated in a Black Space Week event highlighting African American contributions to space, and hosted a joint summit of the Patti Grace Smith and Brooke Owens Fellowship programs that advance DEI in the space industry. At the AIAA ASCEND 2024 conference, NOAA/OSC cosponsored the Diverse Dozen event programming, which highlighted underrepresented voices to promote DEI in the space community. The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) partnered with NASA to connect minority business enterprises to NASA acquisition and development opportunities, boosting equitable participation in the space economy.
Leveraged Commercial Space Capabilities for Weather Observation
NOAA made various commercial satellite data buys that improved its weather forecasts while supporting the development of commercial markets. In 2021-2024, NOAA placed seven data orders for radio occultation satellite data to enhance forecasting accuracy and effectiveness. NOAA also bought commercial satellite data to evaluate its ability to meet other requirements, including for space weather, ocean surface winds, and microwave sounding.
 
Compliments of the United States Department of CommerceThe post DoC | Prioritizing Space Commerce Within the Commerce Department first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

NY Fed | Inflation Expectations Mixed; Job Turnover Expectations Decline

NEW YORK—The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Center for Microeconomic Data today released the December 2024 Survey of Consumer Expectations, which shows that inflation expectations were unchanged at the short-term horizon, increased at the medium-term horizon, and decreased at the longer-term horizon. The average perceived likelihoods of a job loss, voluntary job separation, and finding a job in the event of a job loss all declined. While year-ahead household income growth expectations declined slightly and are now comparable to their pre-pandemic levels, spending growth expectations increased and remain well above pre-pandemic readings.
The main findings from the December 2024 Survey are:
Inflation

Median inflation expectations were unchanged at 3.0% at the one-year horizon, increased to 3.0% from 2.6% at the three-year horizon, and declined to 2.7% from 2.9% at the five-year horizon. The increase at the three-year horizon was broad-based across age, education, and income groups. However, the decline at the five-year horizon was driven by respondents below age 40 and was most pronounced for those with a high-school education or less. The survey’s measure of disagreement across respondents (the difference between the 75th and 25th percentile of inflation expectations) was unchanged at the one-year horizon, increased at the three-year horizon, and decreased at the five-year horizon.
Median inflation uncertainty—or the uncertainty expressed regarding future inflation outcomes—increased at the one- and three-year horizons and declined at the five-year horizon.
Median home price growth expectations increased by 0.1 percentage point to 3.1%. The series has held in a range from 3.0 to 3.3% since August 2023.
Year-ahead commodity price expectations for food increased by 0.2 percentage point to 4.0%, while price expectations for other commodities declined. Year-ahead price expectations fell by 0.7 percentage point for gas to 2.0% (the lowest reading since September 2022), by 1 percentage point for the cost of college education to 5.7%, by 0.2 percentage point for the cost of medical care to 5.8%, and by 0.2 percentage point for rent to 5.5%.

Labor Market

Median one-year-ahead expected earnings growth decreased by 0.2 percentage point to 2.8%. The current reading equals the 12-month trailing average of 2.8%.
Mean unemployment expectations—or the mean probability that the U.S. unemployment rate will be higher one year from now—declined by 0.4 percentage point to 34.6%.
The mean perceived probability of losing one’s job in the next 12 months declined by 1.6 percentage points to 11.9%. The mean probability of leaving one’s job voluntarily in the next 12 months also declined by 2.0 percentage points to 18.2%. Both readings are the lowest since January 2024. The declines were most pronounced for the respondents with some college education and those with annual household incomes below $50,000.
The mean perceived probability of finding a job if one’s current job was lost declined sharply, to 50.2% from 54.1% in November 2024. This is the lowest reading since April 2021. The decline was most pronounced for respondents with a high school degree or less.

Household Finance

Median expected growth in household income declined by 0.3 percentage point to 2.8%, the lowest reading since May 2021. The series remains slightly above the pre-pandemic level of 2.7% from February 2020.
Median household spending growth expectations increased by 0.1 percentage point to 4.8%, remaining well above pre-pandemic levels.
Perceptions of credit access compared to a year ago deteriorated, with a larger share of respondents reporting tighter conditions. Expectations about credit access a year from now also deteriorated, with a smaller share of respondents expecting looser credit and a larger share expecting tighter credit a year from now.
The average perceived probability of missing a minimum debt payment over the next three months increased to 14.2% from 13.2%. The increase was broad-based across income and education groups. This reading equals the September 2024 reading, which was the highest level of the series since April 2020.
The median expected year-ahead change in taxes at current income level decreased by 0.4 percentage point to 3.0%, its lowest reading since October 2020.
Median year-ahead expected growth in government debt declined by 0.3 percentage point to 5.9%, reaching the lowest level since January 2018.
The mean perceived probability that the average interest rate on saving accounts will be higher 12 months from now decreased by 1.5 percentage points to 25.2%.
Perceptions about households’ current financial situations improved, with fewer respondents reporting being worse off and more respondents reporting being better off than a year ago. Year-ahead expectations were essentially unchanged, with a smaller share of respondents expecting to be worse off and a smaller share expecting to be better off a year from now.
The mean perceived probability that U.S. stock prices will be higher 12 months from now declined by 0.6 percentage point to 39.8%.

About the Survey of Consumer Expectations (SCE)
The SCE contains information about how consumers expect overall inflation and prices for food, gas, housing, and education to behave. It also provides insight into Americans’ views about job prospects and earnings growth and their expectations about future spending and access to credit. The SCE also provides measures of uncertainty regarding consumers’ outlooks. Expectations are also available by age, geography, income, education, and numeracy.
The SCE is a nationally representative, internet-based survey of a rotating panel of approximately 1,300 household heads. Respondents participate in the panel for up to 12 months, with a roughly equal number rotating in and out of the panel each month. Unlike comparable surveys based on repeated cross-sections with a different set of respondents in each wave, this panel allows us to observe the changes in expectations and behavior of the same individuals over time. For further information on the SCE, please refer to an overview of the survey methodology here, the interactive chart guide, and the survey questionnaire.
For more information, please contact:

Mariah Measey, NEW YORK FED

 
Compliments of the Federal Reserve Bank of New YorkThe post NY Fed | Inflation Expectations Mixed; Job Turnover Expectations Decline first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

ECB | Public vs. private R&D: impacts on productivity

Blog post by Arnaud Dyèvre | Investments in R&D typically foster productivity growth. But the funding source matters. The ECB Blog shows that publicly funded R&D complements private investments and has greater effects on productivity growth because of its larger spillovers.
Arguably, the track record of government-funded innovation is mixed. On the one hand, governments have funded some technological endeavours that later turned out to be unsuccessful and costly. On the other hand, the history of technology is also filled with crucial innovations developed with public funding: lithium-iron batteries, high-speed trains and the GPS are all either direct results or byproducts of governments providing funding for research and development (R&D). Knowing what sets government funding apart and how it interacts with private R&D is key to our understanding of what drives economic growth.
Comparing private and public R&D funding in the United States between 1950 and 2020, I show in this Blog post that, historically, public R&D tends to produce patents that are more impactful and rely more on science. Furthermore, government-funded R&D has significant spillover effects on the wider economy and a larger impact on productivity. This US experience can be informative for growth and innovation in the euro area, where the need for growth-enhancing policies is more salient than ever after a decade of disappointing productivity growth.
The shift from public to private R&D
Overall funding for R&D has increased in the United States since the 1950s, but there has been a significant change in its composition (Chart 1). Measured as a share of GDP, R&D that is directly funded by the government (but which may be carried out by private firms, universities or government labs) peaked in 1964 (blue line) and has since diminished by two-thirds. In contrast, private R&D has tripled over the same period (orange line), surpassing government funding as the largest source in 1980. Meanwhile, funding from NGOs, universities, and individual US states has always been marginal.
Chart 1
The shift in US R&D funding from public to private
Source: Paper, based on data from the National Science Foundation.
Key differences between public and private R&D
The implications of this decline in publicly funded R&D become clear when looking at US patent data over the past 70 years, distinguishing between patents funded by public money and those funded by private money.[1] Publicly funded patents differ significantly from those developed with private funding, irrespective of who performs the R&D: firms, universities or government labs.
First, patents funded by public money are much more likely to be grounded in scientific research. They cite scientific papers nearly four times as often as private patents do. This suggests that public patents are more reliant on fundamental knowledge, whereas private firms tend to focus on research with more immediate commercial applications.
Second, publicly funded patents tend to be more impactful than private ones. I measure the impact of a patent by the number of times it is cited by other patents[2] and by its potential to be a breakthrough innovation (that is, a patent that opens an entirely new technology class). Even when adjusting for the financial input and the productivity of the patent’s inventors, I find that publicly funded patents are 19% more likely to be breakthrough innovations than private ones.
Third, and most importantly, public R&D generates greater “spillovers”, meaning that its innovations are beneficial to a greater number of firms across the economy. I measure the extent of a patent’s spillovers by counting the number of patent “technology classes” (i.e. technological categories) that cite this patent. Public patents are, on average, referenced by a larger number of technology classes. For instance, the patent most cited across technology classes was filed in 1989 by a company that received NASA funding and developed microactuators, an invention that found applications in medicine, consumer electronics, aerospace, and many other areas.
While this comparison does not capture all aspects of R&D – at the very least because not all innovations are patented – it does focus my study on innovations with commercial applications. As such, this approach is uniquely suited to understanding the impacts of R&D on firm productivity, which I discuss in the next section.
Public R&D spillovers increase firm productivity
The larger spillovers from publicly funded innovations have significant positive effects on the private sector, boosting firm productivity, further patent production, and additional R&D spending. I find a causal link by examining funding shocks, which I define as all changes in US federal government spending on R&D across agencies and time. These shocks offer a natural experiment akin to a randomised control trial, the standard for establishing causality in science.
The NASA funding surge of the 1960s is a telling example of such shocks. In response to the USSR’s launch of Sputnik in 1957, the US government spent an average of USD 25 billion a year on research initiatives in constant 2020 dollars in the subsequent decade. By comparison, NASA’s 1957 R&D budget was a mere USD 500 million. This surge in funding increased NASA’s patent and research output, which in turn spilled over to the private sector. Companies that produced technologies similar to the ones on which NASA was working had access to a larger flow of knowledge from NASA, which prompted them to produce more patents and invest more in R&D as well.
Using these variations in funding as well as firms’ technological proximity to specific federal agencies, I find that a 1% increase in publicly funded patents leads to a 0.025% increase in total factor productivity (TFP), a 0.024% rise in the firms’ own patent output, and a 0.031% increase in their R&D expenditures.[3] These impacts are shown, with confidence intervals, in Chart 2. Confidence intervals show how much statistical noise there is in the data. The wider the intervals, the less confident one can be in the precision of the estimations. Notably, smaller firms, which may lack the resources to conduct fundamental R&D, benefit more from public R&D spillovers than larger firms.
Chart 2
Impacts of public R&D spillovers on firm productivity and innovation
Source: Paper.
Implications for overall productivity
Given the differences between public and private R&D, and the positive impacts of public R&D on firm productivity, could the decline in public R&D be partly responsible for the slowdown in US productivity growth? To evaluate the aggregate consequences of these differences, I built a macroeconomic model of US productivity since 1950, in which both the government and private firms engage in R&D. A key assumption is that the government is more interested in generating breakthrough innovations that may or may not be useful for firms, while firms focus their R&D efforts on more targeted innovation that have a clear potential to improve their own productivity and products. As a result, the government specialises in fundamental R&D while firms specialise in applied R&D. The model is then calibrated with the decline in public R&D we saw in Chart 1, as well as the impact estimates from Chart 2.
The results suggest that around one-third of the decline in productivity growth since 1960 can be attributed to the reduced role of public R&D. Chart 3 shows the declining productivity growth in the United States over the last 70 years (in orange) and the TFP growth predicted by the model (in blue).
Chart 3
US productivity growth; model versus data
Source: Paper.
This does not imply that public R&D is inherently better than private R&D. Instead, they serve complementary roles. Public R&D lays the groundwork through fundamental research, which entrepreneurs then build upon to create marketable products and services. A balanced mix of both types of R&D is essential for driving productivity, but it appears that the United States is currently overly reliant on private R&D.
Which lessons can the euro area and the broader European Union draw from this evidence? In the absence of directly comparable, long-term data in the EU, making EU-specific recommendations is a speculative exercise. One can note, however, that a key issue faced by European innovators is not the lack of public funding of innovation, but rather the lack of venture capital allowing innovators to translate ideas into profitable businesses. This is a core tenet of the recent report by Mario Draghi on the future of European competitiveness, and the strong complementarities between public and private R&D highlighted by this research echo this point.
The views expressed in each blog entry are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the European Central Bank and the Eurosystem.
Check out The ECB Blog and subscribe for future posts.

Patents that receive funding from the federal government in the US typically acknowledge the receipt of a federal grant in the main text of the patent. While such disclosure was initially voluntary, it has become a requirement for all federally funded patents after the passing of the Bayh-Dole act in 1980. The requirement applies to all entities doing R&D, whether they are private firms or universities.
Patent citations are a common measure of the technical value of an innovation. A patent that is relevant to many other inventions will accrue many citations.
Total factor productivity is a firm’s contribution to output not accounted for by capital or labour. It is a measure of the efficiency with which a firm mobilises all factors of production together to generate its output.These results are obtained from running regressions on a sample of publicly listed firms in all sectors of the US economy.

 
Compliments of the European Central BankThe post ECB | Public vs. private R&D: impacts on productivity first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.