\nEver since the outbreak of the crisis, the work on alternatives has been central for transform! europe. By launching an interdisciplinary and permanent working group<\/b> of economists, trade unionists and historians (first meeting Rome September 2014), Transform! wishes to develop a project dedicated to a \u201cLeft industrial policy \u2013 productive reconstruction for Europe\u201d, one of the key issues for the future of Europe.
\nThe contribution to the debate on Europe\u2019s productive reconstruction goes back to the creation of the transform! Economists\u2019 Working Group (TEWG) in 2013 in Paris. Shortly afterwards, the TEWG held two workshops on the issue at the 2013 annual conference of the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy \u2013 an important European network of heterodox economists \u2013, which resulted in the publication of a Discussion Paper<\/link>.
\nAt the suggestion of a European working group chaired by A. Troost<\/span>, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation in Brussels on 16 and 17 October held a workshop dedicated to industrial issues. It was the occasion for M(E)Ps, economists, trade unionists, political leaders \u2013 with the participation of transform![1]<\/sup> \u2013 to discuss work coming from several EU countries, as well as the challenges of an alternative European approach. Drafted by A.Troost<\/span>, summary of the workshop and of the issues to be studied further is already available in German. Last but not least, transform! will organize a workshop in Paris on 8 and 9 December in order to present the first outcomes in a larger event and to draft a joint paper intended to a broad audience .
\nThis document aims at presenting <\/b>a first summary of the previous discussions, as well as the potential next working steps ahead of us.<\/p>\n
2. Diagnosis \u2013 Few Elements<\/b><\/h3>\n
With overall weak economic performances that fuel the deflationary spiral and an industrial production rate that has not reached the pre-crisis level, the Eurozone is still facing a high unemployment rate in average \u2013 and is much less well sheltered from an eventual further deterioration of the economic situation than other world regions or the USA. Other graphs[3]<\/sup> show the growing internal disparities with regard to national industrial fabrics in the Eurozone, as well as the structural decline of the industrial share in GDP or the drop in the fixed assets investments. \u201cThe European Commission, for the last few decades, has turned it back on some policies undertaken in the 50s and 60s (Euratom, Ceca) and, strongly influenced by the neo-liberal theses, now prefers to support a perspective of unregulated movement of goods and services rather than the development of productive activity\u2026The policy of competitiveness has, to all intents and purposes, replaced industrial policy. Regarding support for industrial sectors, this was virtually forbidden or, at least, strongly restricted for those States that wanted to help activities that they considered strategic\u2026.This post-Schumpeter vision that makes technological change the preferred means of emerging from the crisis, also applies to the measures aimed at favoring the mobility of highly qualified people and the laws on intellectual property. There has, however, been little attention to the fact that technological change cannot occur without some matching social change being considered desirable. There has been little attention to recognizing the competence of the wage earners and their mastery of industrial skills. Innovation and technological change are perceived as if they were autonomous or bodiless dynamisms that do not need any outside action, \u201ccrafted\u201d by those who work on it. In other words the human element is ignored\u2026 In consequence, this pseudo new industrial policy, quite logically, does not oppose but reinforces the so-called \u201cstructural\u201d policies (not dealt with here) that aim at reducing the cost of labour and increase its flexibility. This overall perspective is, obviously in line with the application of the austerity policies, of which it is one of the foundations.\u201d[5]<\/sup> A policy change breaking with the current logic is necessary.<\/b> But that as it may, Sigfrido Ramirez <\/b>reminded that the Left should watch out not to fall into several traps with regards to its elaboration of a EIP. The first one is the ecological trap, best embodied by green capitalism and parts of the European Greens\u2019 project of \u201cGreen New Deal\u201d. The second one is the right-wing criticism of the very principle of public firm and state planning. The third one is the technocratic method without the development of democracy. It should be clear that states would play a crucial role in the democratic planning of productive activities for the common good. The debate on the \u201calternatives\u201d (reindustrialization, industrial renaissance, productive reconstruction \/ transformation\u2026) is gaining weight and relevance. It takes up a wide range of issues \u2013 such as those of social models, competitiveness in the EU, \u201ccore\u201d \/ \u201cperiphery\u201d divides, new cooperation and division of labor in Europe. The following issues seem relevant and should be studied in-depth:<\/p>\n To sum up, we have to imagine a new development model, respectful of human being, respectful of nature; providing good, quality jobs; securing citizens\u2019 lives all over the world. Our ambition is to enhance our voice with this project, on the basis of the quality of the results, the cooperation between different stakeholders and the organization of a permanent working process (and not only of \u201cevents\u201d). Contact: <\/b>benatouil@transform-network.net<\/link>\n Selective Bibliography<\/b> Notes:<\/span><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Following up the work undertaken last year, the Brussels office of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation<\/b> held a two-day workshop dedicated to the assessment of the EU\u2019s economic situation in order to lay the basis of a Left industrial policy for Europe. The Members of the Bundestag Axel Troost (Vice-chairman of DIE LINKE, member of the Bundestag) and Harald Wolf, as well as the former MEP J\u00fcrgen Klute (GUE\/NGL) played a central role in the organization of the workshop. His former assistant at the European Parliament Hanna Penzer was present. Transform! Europe participated actively in the workshop. With the participation of Heinz Bierbaum (responsible for Europe and International affairs, Die Linke), Klaus S\u00fchl and Roland Kulke (RLS Brussels), David Meienreis (economist), Piotr Janisewski (RLS Warsaw office); a Greek delegation (Alexis Charitsis – Syriza, Petros Linardos \u2013 RLS Athens and Savas Robolis \u2013 Labour Institut); Marisa Matias (Portugal) and Paloma Lopez (Spain), GUE\/NGL Members of European Parliament; Joachim Bischoff and Bj\u00f6rn Ratke (Sozialismus), Christian Pilichowski (unionist, France), Sigfrido Ramirez (historian), Maxime Benatouil, Elisabeth Gauthier (members of the transform! working group)<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Graph in Bischoff J., \u201cEurope: a Continent between Stagnation and a Geopolitical Turning Point<\/link>\u201d, transform! Economic and Social Quarterly, 8 October 2014<\/span><\/p>\n [3]<\/a> See Annexes below<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Quote from the not yet issued Paper written by Gabriel Colletis: \u201cFor an Alternative Industrial Policy\u201d, September 2014<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Gabriel Colletis, Id.<\/p>\n
\nGiven that the particular severity of the Eurozone crisis is due to factors related to the very nature of European integration, only a profound reorientation could open up prospects for emerging from the crisis. This assessment also applies to attempts at designing European industrial and investment policies. Austerity belongs to the problems preventing to exit from the crisis \u2013 not in any way to the solutions. In the most affected countries, one can see how dramatically harmful the nature of the \u00ab aids \u00bb is, leading to a sharp rise in unemployment, imbalances between social expenditures and tax revenues, public and private indebtedness, as well as declines in GDP.
\nAs shown in the graph below[2]<\/sup>, when it comes to industrial production the monetary union is far from having made up for the 2008 financial shock \u2013 and the hitherto crisis management based on austerity policies and internal devaluations.
\nDevelopment of industrial production rates in the Eurozone and the USA<\/i><\/b>
\nManufacturing sector (1998:1=100)
\n ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wwwdev-transform-network-net.sociality.gr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/RTEmagicC_Development-of-industrial-p_04.jpg.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nThe exiting of the European continent from stagnation will require an audacious investment plan capable of addressing the economic, social, democratic and environmental challenges ahead \u2013 in other words, a thorough productive-social transformation. \u201cWithout a strong industry, deeply transformed in its ends and its means, Europe will be unable to emerge from the present crisis and will not begin the economic, social and environmental an ultimately political evolution that, today, is urgently needed.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/p>\n3. The Neoliberal Agenda for European Industrial Policy<\/b><\/h3>\n
\nAfter pushing to the margins the idea of a comprehensive European industrial policy \u2013 prerogative of member states \u2013 in favor of the competition policy and later the Lisbon strategy, EU policy makers brought it back on the table due to the severity of the crisis. Members of the European Parliament\u2019s industry committee (ITRE) approved in November 2013 a plan to bring about a \u201cRenaissance of Industry for a Sustainable Europe<\/link>\u201d (RISE)<\/a>. It suggests that industry should in the near future represent 20% of the GDP. The stated objectives are the increase in competitiveness and the industrial development in support of a sustain growth and to boost employment.
\nThe European Commission took a step in the same direction with a communication on January 2014 calling for a \u201cEuropean Industrial Renaissance<\/link>"<\/a>. More recently, the new Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has been advocating for a EUR 300 billion Investment Plan, mostly to develop public infrastructures throughout Europe. He will have to present a strategic plan by the end of January \u2013 three months after that the new Commission takes up its position. Six sectors were already defined as strategic: automotive, aeronautics, engineering, space, chemicals and pharmaceutical industries.
\n\u00ab The investment program, while it enables expenditure in areas that are indeed important for Europe\u2019s future, nevertheless is incapable, as it stands, of enabling Europe to undertake the working out of a new development model. The reason is that the fundamentals of this program are unchanged.\u201d [6]<\/sup>
\nMEP Paloma Lopez <\/b>(GUE\/NGL, member of the Committee Industry, Research and Energy) recalled that it is of utmost importance to tackle seriously the content of the recovery plans that are being discussed, so that their weaknesses can be revealed, and that the Left could deepen its constructive criticism and avoid traps in the developing of its own project. For instance, the new European Commission should look into a possible partnership between the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank for funding its investment plan \u2013 rather than into the European Stability Mechanism. From a Left perspective, even if initiatives such as Juncker\u2019s are welcome, the total amount is too small to really make a difference. Spain does not only need 300 000 new jobs. It needs 3 million of them. Moreover \u2013 and just as the previous attempts mentioned above \u2013, investment is coupled with the further implementation of austerity and structural reforms, as well as internal devaluation and the design of an export-led growth model. What is given with one hand is taken away with the other\u2026 Labour force is still considered as a cost, which does not bode well for domestic demand and improvement of workers\u2019 skills; no serious move towards the ecological transition is at sight; the financialization of the real economy is being completely ignored, and so are issues related to economic democracy.
\nMEP Marisa Matias <\/span>(GUE\/NGL) notes that in the debate on European industrial policy, competitiveness is once again at the core of the discussions \u2013 and from the sole perspective of the employers. A Left approach of this \u201ccompetitiveness\u201d challenge must be developed. In Portugal, different views on European policies are in competition with each other: pro-business communities are content when the profit rate rises and when the social model goes downhill. From the point of view of the domestic economy\u2019s most important sectors (SMEs, wine production, shoes production), one can notice withdrawal attitudes that do not foster struggles. The European structural funds experience have left a bitter taste in so far as activity sectors were merely wiped out (\u201crestructuration\u201d) and structural funds-financed infrastructures did not solve transportation and employment problems.<\/p>\n4. Alternatives \u2013 Principles of a Left Industrial Policy \/ Productive Transformation for Europe<\/b><\/h3>\n
\nIt is not a regular investment program that is necessary, but a program with new dimensions. Considering the great urgency \u2013 including that of politics, with the progression of far right political forces \u2013, the mobilization of European funds and public investments would have a positive spillover effect on private ones and would therefore help boost real economy. This would be a major step in reversing the current logic\u2019s trend, providing new conditions for social change and opening up prospects for a productive transformation. A real European industrial policy can represent a real alternative to the present industrial pseudo-policy only if it is drawn up in the perspective of a new development model.
\n4.1. Putting an end to austerity policies is a priority <\/b>to escape from economic stagnation and to start creating a dynamic, a springboard allowing to relaunch constructive policies. That being said, immediate measures must be taken to provide a way out of the economical and political impasse \u2013 starting with the end of austerity programs. Six measures would hence pave the way to the implementation of a progressive EIP. A. Troost <\/b>named his presentation accordingly: \u201causterity is the cause, not the solution for the European economical crisis[7]<\/sup>\u201d. The immediate end of \u201causteritarian\u201d-oriented policies as pre-condition of all crisis exit strategies for the EU. The financing of the public budget must be uncoupled from financial markets. Public debt cuts for over-indebted states, together with a European wealth tax to reduce public debts to a tolerable level. A strong regulation of the banking sector putting banks back at the service of real economy, together with a restriction of out-of-control financial products. Elimination of external trade imbalances: surplus countries must increase their domestic demand. Instead of destructive savings, relevant investments in the future are needed. For this particular point, the questions of their selection and prioritization are open \u2013 but following crucial sectors enjoy wide consensus support in the Left: education\/training, transport infrastructure, local expenses, energy transition.
\n4.2. A EUROPEAN industrial policy? What for? <\/b>Industry has been a major focus of European integration (energy, coal, steel, etc.) from its origins, although considered as part of national competences. In the debate within the Left, some do not wish to go further than the \u00ab national industrial policy \u00bb option, or \u2013 at best \u2013 to an addition, or even a coordination of national policies. But the state of the crisis (in Europe and in the world), its causes and its consequences, together with contemporary issues (energy, ecological transformation, etc.) require today political interventions of a new scope. In other words, given what is currently at stake (social and ecological transition, energy, globalized economy, etc.), but also due to the important backwardness with regard to investment \u2013 and this also applies to Germany \u2013, no country can face these challenges alone.
\nBut the ongoing policies must urgently be reoriented. <\/b>The European cohesion policy, second largest EU budget (ca. \u20ac 50 billion per year) after the Common agricultural policy, did not match the anticipated outcomes. It must therefore be reoriented, in the light of the growing asymmetry. The next negotiations on the EU budget must be offensively used to define new criteria and provide appropriate means for a new orientation (J\u00fcrgen Klute<\/b>, former MEP \u2013 GUE\/NGL).
\nIf massive structural funds enabled many state members to develop their infrastructures (notably highways, airports, etc.), or regions or municipalities to set up relevant projects, they did not lead to a significant and sustainable development of the concerned countries\u2019 economic potential.
\nRegarding the implementation of PPPs (private-public partnership), it turned out that numerous countries\u2019 Court of Auditors observed important extra costs at the expense of public finances. The British parliament even initiated a committee of inquiry on these abuses.
\nConcerning Europe-based transnational corporate groups whose strategy is geared toward the world, it is necessary to explore the conditions of their constructive inclusion into a European industrial policy (E. Gauthier, transform! europe)
\n4.3. <\/b>Another fundamental issue lies in the nature of the strategic options <\/b>(S. Ramirez, <\/b>economic historian and transform! project officer). It is about defining priorities. Their underlying principles \u2013 for whom? According to which criteria, values and orientations? <\/b>\u2013 will have to be discussed and debated. What strategic industries (e.g. energy, what approach on the arms industry? etc.) What \u201cplanning tools\u201d? What institutions (an EcoFin for industry? New agencies?) Is another use of already existing institutions possible and desirable?
\nTo be efficient, public authorities\u2019 interventions must be differentiated. Two approaches can be distinguished in this regard (H. Bierbaum, the Head of the international section of DIE LINKE): in countries with a solid industrial fabric (e.g. Germany), it is about giving impetus to social and ecological transformation ; in declining countries, the reconstruction must be put at the top of the political agenda. In the countries most severely hit by the crisis, the needs are high for rebuilding the production capacities and the whole circuit of value chain. This must be done within countries, but also between countries and regions \u2013 having in mind their specific features.
\nRegarding future investments, priorities should be defined in differentiated manner, <\/b>from criteria taking into consideration the regions, the needs, the different existing industrial sectors, the necessary fostering of research and development, trainings, etc.
\nDifferentiated regulations <\/b>are therefore crucial with regard to exchanges with the rest of the world and within the Eurozone (H. Bierbaum) in order to reduce the pressure exerted on the weakest \u2013 issue that the protectionist (ideological) approach fails to address. The overcoming of the strong asymmetry must become a major European goal (S. Robolis, Labour Institute), which implies a set of targeted interventions that will put an end to the very idea of laissez aller <\/i>in the allocation of financial resources (P. Linardos, RLS Athens office). Recovery efforts must enable countries with trade deficit to immediately meet internal needs, so that a boom in imports would be avoided (A. Troost). International trade agreements, such as the TTIP, would compromise any effort of reconstruction.
\n4.4. <\/b>As Joachim Bischoff <\/b>(economist and co-editor of the Hamburg-based journal Sozialismus) <\/i>put it, an alternative conception <\/b>must envisage simultaneously a domestic market-oriented growth in all EU countries. Export policy cannot be a priority under today\u2019s conditions. Concretely, this means expanding and modernizing public infrastructures; increasing the employment rate; creating more and better jobs, especially for women, young people and older workers; enabling people of all ages to anticipate and manage changes through investments in skills, as well as in education and training; modernizing labour markets and social systems \u2013 so that growth can benefit to the EU as a whole. <\/b>
\nA Plan for Reconstruction, Innovation and Ecological Transition requires investments whose overall aim is not the sole financial profitability. <\/b>The ECB alone cannot solve the Eurozone\u2019s problems. That\u2019s why a comprehensive strategy is necessary \u2013 that is, a Mix composed of monetary policy (ECB), a European investment fund, a more expansionary fiscal policy for the EU and the member states, as well as structural policies (J. Bischoff)
\n4.5. A plan for reconstruction must be based on a massive stimulus package<\/b>, in which public investments would play a central role \u2013 see the DGB\u2019s \u201cMarshall Plan for Europe\u201d, the ETUC \u201cNew Path for Europe\u201d or the industriAll\u2019s \u201cManifesto to put the Industry Back to Work\u201d (H.Bierbaum). It was made clear that internal disparities had been sharpened by the austerity-based crisis management, and that structural differences regarding the industrial fabric (not only Core-Periphery, but also among Southern EU countries themselves) must be taken into consideration, so that useless and ineffective generalizations can be avoided.
\nRe-launching industry, working towards productive transformation requires a comprehensive and consistent approach in terms of \u00ab productive systems \u00bb, and a clear set of priorities. <\/b>The European Commission\u2019s conception of industrial added value is far too inadequate. In the first draft of a soon to be published Transform! Policy Paper, G. Colletis <\/b>lays the groundwork for a EIP fitting into a new development model. He starts from the premise that Europe is facing much more than a growth problem and that emerging from the crisis will take much more than a few cosmetic changes. This new development model has two essential characteristics. The first is that it should become the business of the peoples themselves. In other words, \u201cdemocracy is not the framework or pre-condition of a new development model but its first meaning and its end.\u201d The second characteristic is a profound modification of how productive activities \u2013 and labour \u2013 are perceived. This raises the questions of the selection and prioritization of productive activities in the framework of a massive investment plan. The degree of (high) social usefulness and (low) negative externalities should be at the core of a methodology enabling social and political actors to select and prioritize the productive activities of a new development model. The Left must address the questions related to this methodology as accurately as possible, since all other industrial policy approaches from across the political spectrum neglect this highly important challenge in terms of democracy.
\n4.6. Democracy \u2013<\/b> whether at the workplace or in the policy-making process \u2013 is crucial to overcome the Troika\u2019s authoritarian management, and must therefore be the guiding principle of the Left proposals for a European industrial policy (EIP), argues Heinz Bierbaum. <\/b>Reconstruction strategies must be designed collectively, between European institutions and partners\/driving forces of concerned countries. The employees and their representatives must be included into the framework of a new social democracy, which raises the question of company and transnational corporate governance.
\n4.7. The energy issue is crucial <\/b>for productive reconstruction, competitiveness, social and ecological transition, and for fighting asymmetries in Europe. Some plans failed, such as the solar plan in Greece \u2013 and lessons must be drawn. Efficient innovation does not only imply technical skills, but also social ones. Greek territory\u2019s specificities would allow for \u201canother plan\u201d than the one currently failing (A. Charitsis, <\/b>SYRIZA \/ Energy department).<\/p>\n5. Challenges for the Left<\/b><\/h3>\n
\nAnother trap \u2013 or rather a failure \u2013 concerning previous and current attempts to boost industrial activities was described by Christian Pilichowski <\/b>(former head of the International section of the trade union CGT). <\/b>Namely the sole inclusion of employer representatives in so-called national conferences dedicated to the assessment of the industrial decline in France and to proposals aiming at reversing the trend, leaving the workers aside \u2013 together with their skills and ideas for a better industrial policy. It resulted in the design and implementation of profit-maximizing solutions proposed by and for employers, without any conditionality whatsoever in terms of productive investments or increase in wages. If this debate is particularly important for French industry that fell off to the third place in Europe and whose 49% of its manufacturing goods\u2019 imports come from the EU, valuable lessons can be drawn regarding the weaknesses of a top-down approach that does not involve the industrial workforce. The recognition of workers skills and significant increases in wages must be one the pillars of a Left EIP.
\n The Greek case benefited from a special coverage, given the structural problems of its industrial fabric and the chances of victory for SYRIZA in case of early national elections at the beginning of the coming year. Alexis Charitsis<\/b> presented the party\u2019s plan for the social and productive transformation of the country. Before doing so, he stressed the necessity not to adopt the agenda imposed by political opponents. The economic\/development program is based on three main pillars: confronting the humanitarian crisis, restructuring of production, reforming the state and public administration. The first phase, to be implemented immediately, consists of confronting the humanitarian crisis with short-term measures: increase in wages, pensions and unemployment allowances matching the pre-crisis level, restoration of more protective labour legislation and healthcare, extensive program for housing and feeding those in need. The second phase, actually ensuring the productive and social transformation, depends on a deal regarding the sovereign debt based on cuts in its illegitimate part and a moratorium period during which the payment of the rest of the debt will be linked to a development clause. The role of labour will be upgraded, public goods and public properties will be key factors of the program \u2013 which imply a reconfiguration of the role of the state and a redistribution of wealth \u2013, SMEs must be fostered and the potentialities of the social and solidary economy must be developed \u2013 notably to respond to the youth employment needs and avoid a further \u201cbrain drain\u201d. Petros Linardos <\/b>(RLS Athens office) and Savvas Robolis<\/b> recalled that to address the economic collapse, the framework of this program should feature as part of another development model. It is the only way for the Left to distance itself from the obsolete supply-offer models used by both neoliberals and social-democrats, and to efficiently contribute to the creation of a new welfare system in Europe.
\nThe Greek case <\/b>exemplifies the need to implement a DOUBLE STRATEGY <\/b>for devastated national economies: addressing immediately the humanitarian crisis, while interlinking this first measures with a transformative project of the economic and social model in a new democratic impetus.
\nIf SYRIZA would come to power, it would not only be a chance for Greece, but for Europe as a whole <\/b>\u2013 and also a challenge that the European Left will have to take up. It will be necessary to show that SYRIZA program is actually the program of all those in favor of a clear break with austerity policies \u2013 and its implementation, a step forward for the peoples of Europe. In order to counter the isolation of Greece if necessary, it will be of the utmost importance to engage in this European confrontation with attempts at modifying the balance of power in every EU country. This would be the most efficient form of solidarity with SYRIZA and Greeks\u2019 majority choice.<\/p>\n6. Work Project<\/b><\/h3>\n
\nThere is, of course, a gap between the different ways of understanding the root causes of the crisis within European unionism, the same goes for NGOs or political organizations. Consequently there are as many solutions as different ways of understanding the genuine reasons that led to the crisis. The announcement of a new European policy can be considered as a first out of the mobilizations of social forces in Europe. This opens up a wider space to be undertaken by the Left forces.
\nThe aim of the working group launched by Transform is to create a space where economical experts, unionists, researchers, social and political actors, political foundations\u2019 officers, relying on their own analysis and experiences, will jointly:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nNext steps<\/b><\/p>\n\n
\nBaum Josef, \u201cAnalyse, Herausforderungen, Perspektiven und wirtschaftpolitische Implikationen einer Reindustrialisierung in Nider\u00f6sterreich bzw. \u00d6sterreich\u201d, Im Auftrag der AK-N\u00d6, August 2014
\nCharistis Alexis, \u201cProductive Reconstruction and Socio-Economic Transformation in Greece\u201d, Paper presented at the RLS Brussels Workshop <\/i>\u201cLeft Industry Policy in Europe\u201d, 16th<\/sup> October 2014
\nColletis Gabriel, \u201cAn Alternative European Industrial Policy?\u201d, in Transform! Yearbook 2015<\/i>, No.1 (To be isued in December 2014)
\nObadia Alain, \u201cL\u2019industie au coeur du projet communiste\u201d, in La Revue du Projet<\/i>, No.36, Avril 2014
\nPapadopoulou Elena, \u201cStrategic Objectives of a Plan for Productive Reconstruction\u201d
\nPianta Mario, \u201cAn Industrial Policy for Europe\u201d, in Seoul Journal for Economics<\/i>, Vol.27, No.3, 2014
\nRamirez Sigfrido & Benatouil Maxime, \u201cFrom Industrial Policy to a European Productive Reconstruction\u201d, Transform! Discussion Paper<\/i>, No.3, March 2014
\nTroost Axel, \u201cEin europ\u00e4ischer Recovery Plan\u201d, in www.axel-troost.de<\/link>\nTroost Axel, \u201cAusterit\u00e4t ist Ursache und nicht L\u00f6sung der europ\u00e4ischen Wirtschaftskrise\u201d, PPT presented at the RLS Brussels Workshop <\/i>\u201cLeft Industry Policy in Europe\u201d, in www.axel-troost.de<\/link>\nCGT M\u00e9tallurgie, \u201cIndustrie. Reconqu\u00e9rir les capacit\u00e9s de production, r\u00e9pondre aux besoins humains et environnementaux, relancer l\u2019\u00e9conomie et l\u2019emploi.\u201d, Octobre 2014
\nDGB, \u201cA Marshall Plan for Europe\u201d, December 2012
\nETUC, \u201cA New Path for Europe\u201d, November 2013
\nIndustriAll, \u201cManifesto to put the Industry Back to Work\u201d, Spring 2014<\/p>\n