Energy Transitions

5/6/9 ECTS
Seminar (Präsenzveranstaltung): MES: Zentralbereich Wirtschaft // MES: WPM 6: Wirtschaftspolitik in Europa
Veranstaltungsbeginn: 20.04.2023 Block

As variable as wind, as variable the interests connected to its use: Wind park operators, investors and
landowners are usually keen on maximising profits; energy users, including those afflicted by energy poverty, request affordable
energy; and citizens living in the vicinity wish to be involved in permitting procedures and earning a fair share in the project. Within this mix of interests, the role of the state is to create a level playing field with the ‘balancing of interests’ being an established legal instrument used by public authorities and courts.
Defining the expansion of wind energy as an ‘overriding public interest’ – as of now for 18 months – in the Regulation (EU)
2022/2577 effective as of January 2023 resets this playing field potentially to the disadvantage of both local stakeholders and
energy community initiatives acting slower than professional wind park developers. This poses the hazard, that ‘green grabbing’, i.e., appropriation of land and natural resources suited for the exploitation of renewables by multinationals, will spread due to the increasing economic value of wind following the dramatic push in the expansion of wind energy. Due to the lack of defined property rights in wind, we observe the formation of de factoproperty rights: Where one wind park is built no other can be sited.
It is landowners that decide whether or not third parties can exploit the wind blowing over their property. Wind park operators
have even sued other operators in their vicinity for ‘wind-theft’. Against this background local energy communities appear as the
weakest actor and their rights vis-à-vis wind, remain unclear. This seminar dissects the possibility to formulate property rights in wind, the possibility of declaring it as a common, and the legal mechanism behind the ‘balancing of interests’ concerning wind energy. Following the Tenets of Transitional Justice, the following questions are addressed:
• How do the current legal systems of selected EU Member States distribute the ills and benefits connected to the construction
and operation of wind parks, using the mechanism of ‘balancing of interest’? (distributive justice);
• Do legislators and courts consider all conflicting interests in their ‘balancing of interests’, including those of typically
underrepresented people? (justice as recognition);
• How can energy communities be empowered to actively shape the energy transition and what role does the state, e.g. by
defining wind as a ‘common good’, play in this process? (procedural justice).
Formalities
Study programs 5/6/9 ECTS
MES modules: ZB Wirtschaft, WPM 6 // IBA modules: S-Module; Faculty of Law: Master of German and Polish Law (Module 3); SPB
5 (European Law) (without ECTS)
Performance test and credits
• 5 and 6 ECTS: regular attendance; oral presentation; term paper around 15 pages
• 9 ECTS: regular attendance; oral presentation; term paper around 20 pages
Students are required to write a paper (80% of the grade) and present their research to the class (20% of the grade).
Deadlines
Paper submission
Upload final presentation of term paper topic by 18.05.2023 at 23:59
Finalized term paper by the end of the semester # SoSe 2023: 30.08.2023.
https://www.wiwi.europa-uni.de/de/studium/pruefungen/index.html
https://study.europa-uni.de/de/studieren/termine/semestertermine/index.html
Registration
By 18.04.2023 at kelso-professorship@europa-uni.de including matriculation number and the exact title of the course.
Termine (präsenz): Do 20.04.23, 14 - 18 Uhr | Fr 21.04.23, 14 - 18 Uhr | Do 04.05.23, 14 - 18 Uhr | Fr 05.05.23, 14 - 18 Uhr | Fr
19.05.23, 14 - 18 Uhr
Sprache: Englisch

Energy Transitions 7: WIMBY – Wind In My Back Yard: Fostering Acceptance for Wind Energy in Europe

5/6/9 ECTS
Seminar (Präsenzveranstaltung): MES modules: ZB Wirtschaft, WPM 6 // IBA modules: S-Module; Faculty of Law: Master of German and Polish Law (Module 3); SPB 5 (European Law) (without ECTS)
Veranstaltungsbeginn: Vorraussichtlich 13.12.2020

Wind power is one of the fastest-growing, most mature and cost-competitive renewable energy technologies. But its deployment faces significant challenges due to a lack of understanding of the (distribution of) complex (positive and negative) impacts and their interplay with low local acceptance. The Horizon Europe project “WIMBY – Wind In My Back Yard”, of which the Kelso Institute Europe is a partner, addresses these challenges by fostering the societal engagement of citizens and stakeholders so that wind energy gains substantially more popular support, thereby enabling its role in Europe's decarbonisation goals. To do so, WIMBY translates the results of in-depth models to assess the potential for the development of wind parks into useful and comprehensive information and tools for stakeholders, facilitating decision making towards lower impact and more participative wind energy deployment. To thoroughly assess location-dependent potential impacts, conflicts, and synergies of wind power deployment on the natural and social environment, WIMBY combines high resolution spatially explicit techno-economic models under multiple regulatory frameworks, with models to assess environmental, security and health impacts on the one hand, and models to determine potential synergies in ecosystems on the other.

WIMBY follows a citizens' science approach for dissemination supported through a Web-GIS interactive forum that improves upon the content and functionality of the New European Wind Atlas. On a community level, we study four geographically, climatically, and socio-economically diverse pilot cases across the EU, where detailed modelling and an immersive 3D platform and a Multi-Criteria Satisfaction Analysis framework are employed in workshops with stakeholders of potential projects. Throughout the project, WIMBY deepens the knowledge of the drivers and barriers for social acceptance and develops guidelines to raise public understanding and engagement with wind power, especially promoting the uptake of new generations of large(r) wind power turbines and farms.

Against this background the seminar focuses on justice concerns: Only the proof of consistent and sustainable benefits of RE projects for the local stakeholders can ensure acceptance and support for implementation of wind power projects that – often independently of actual implementation risks or real-life probabilities of undesired side effects – are confronted with scepticism and outright opposition that prevent their realisation. WIMBY’s strategy is, therefore, based on an early engagement of local actors with an emphasis on the question of their involvement both in the planning, implementation and operating process of the project and their financial participation in order to increase local support and prevent obstruction. Transcending individual cases at the community level we pursue an approach to stakeholder engagement based on the Tenets of Transitional Justice. Jenkins3, drawing on McCauley et al.4, distinguishes three tenets of energy justice – distributional justice, justice as recognition and procedural justice, each building on the former. We deduct three Tenets of Transitional Justice following from the logic that if - perceived or real - injustice that is inclined to hamper support for wind projects is to be addressed, you must: (i) firstly, identify the concern, requiring an analysis of objective distributional effects and repercussions of a planned wind project (= Distribution); (ii) secondly, identify whom it affects and how the repercussions are perceived by different groups (= Recognition); (iii) thirdly, identify strategies for remediation through an active empowerment and engagement process sharing burdens and benefits based on proven best practice (= Procedure). The order of these tenets and their corresponding steps of analysis is reflected in the workflow and - taking into account trade-offs, synergies, factors supporting/hindering coalition building - contributes to developing an overall engagement and acceptance strategy for wind power.

In this light, the course gives an overview of the issues relating to transitional justice concerns with a focus on the acceptance of wind power in the Energy Transitions. It places a special emphasis on the formation of renewable energy communities newly introduced in the CEP and social / behavioural aspects of digitisation. Both aspects will play a vital role in the ongoing transition from a rigid and centralized to a decentralized and sustainable energy system based on renewable sources.

Hinweise zur Veranstaltung: The dates are tentative and subject to change. Registration must be done by 06.11.2022 at kelso-professorship@europa-uni.de including matriculation number and the exact title of the course.

Leistungsnachweise: 5 and 6 ECTS: regular attendance; oral presentation; term paper around 15 pages; 9 ECTS: regular attendance; oral presentation; term paper around 20 pages 

Sprache: Englisch

Energy Transitions 5: Assessing the Impact of Digitization on Energy Communities - Access, Ability and Interaction

Seminar (Präsenzveranstaltung): MES: Zentralbereich Wirtschaft // MES: WPM 6: Wirtschaftspolitik in Europa
Veranstaltungsbeginn: 21.04.2022 Block
Termine (präsenz): Do 21.04.22, 14 - 18 Uhr | Fr 22.04.22, 14 - 18 Uhr | Do 05.05.22, 14 - 18 Uhr | Fr 06.05.22, 14 - 18 Uhr | Fr 20.05.22, 14 - 18 Uhr
Sprache: Englisch

Energy Transitions 5: Assessing the Impact of Digitization on Energy Communities - Access, Ability and Interaction
5/6/9 ECTS
Study programs: MES modules: ZB Wirtschaft, WPM 6 // IBA modules: S-Module; Faculty of Law: Master of German and Polish Law (Module 3); SPB 5 (European Law) (without ECTS)
Seminar (Präsenzveranstaltung): MES: Zentralbereich Wirtschaft // MES: WPM 6: Wirtschaftspolitik in Europa
Veranstaltungsbeginn: 17.12.2021 Block Ort: HG 162

From a technical point of view the path to climate neutrality is resting on the two pillars of the energy and digital twin transition. But the shift to renewables and an increased energy effi-ciency aiming at the decarbonisation of our economies deeply anchored in the advancement of information and communication technologies (ICT) is tied into a social transition affecting society asymmetrically and producing uneven outcomes. While some groups of society are prone to benefit others are finding themselves on the losing side with the determinants of the corresponding drivers being embedded in social structures and the new boundaries running often – but not always – alongside income groups and educational status. However, distribu-tional repercussions while dividing sectors, social groups, countries, regions, cities also impact within these units thus creating tensions, both, internally and externally. The range of impact is equally wide embracing social status, mobility, labour market chances, educational opportuni-ties, etc. Although coping with the consequences of economic structural changes of industrial revolu-tions as such is nothing new, we are witnessing an unprecedented awareness for justice con-cerns rooting in the massive scale of the anticipated changes and their impact on all societal groups. In particular, the social frictions of the Covid 19 pandemic with its difficult trade-offs between social groups triggered the evolving postulate of “no one left behind” (solidarity, social security systems, etc.). The notion of a “just transition” is also enshrined in the various initia-tives to launch a Green New Deal (Global Green New Deal, European Green New Deal and the like) and the various economic recovery programs like the Next Generation EU. What all stimulus programs – despite large differences in their ideological reasoning, be it neoliberal, Keynesian, socialist or conservative –have in common is that they expressly address trade-offs while asserting synergies with other current transformations. In thiscontext the question of what is considered equitable and just to a large extent depends on perspectives of the respective groups,geographies and income groups. The often-conflicting arguments of the public discourse include such different considerationsas inter-generational justice, compensation for the benefits of the industrialised world to the global south, identity politics andinclusion. As a mirror image of the various definitions of transitional justice corresponding approaches to compensation entailwide arrays regarding the distribu-tion of the resulting burden. More generally speaking we witness an increasing tension be-tweenthe postulate for universal solidarity soliciting cohesion along what is perceived as common denominators of society on the onehand and particular claims of a growing number of sub-groups emerging from an intersectional perspective. This conflict comeswith the ques-tion of how to define the disadvantaged vis-à-vis the benefitting groups and how to delineate economic, spatialand temporal criteria for belonging to either. Borders long believed to have been overcome are reappearing and threaten socialcohesion and stability of our democracies and of the European Union as such: geographic south-north-west-east / social statusrich vs. poor / grid structure centre vs. periphery / access to renewa-ble energy and clean water, air, etc. (foods water energynexus). Trade-offs between interest groups are distorted by the absence or presence of lobby groups and their asymmetricalpow-er. The gap between the rural and the urban is further exacerbated where entire regions are undergoing massive economicrestructuring in order to withdraw from fossil extraction to con-tribute to decarbonisation. Based on the three tenets of energyjustice – distributional justice, justice as recognition and procedural justice, each building on the former (Jenkins (2019), Drawingon McCauley et al. (2013)) the question how to understand a „just transition“ is in the focus. If injustice is to be addressed, onemust: a) identify the concern, requiring an analysis of distributional effects and repercussions (= Distribution); b) identify whomit affects and how the repercussions are per-ceived by these groups, (= Recognition); and c) identify strategies for remediationthrough an active empowerment process based on proven best practice (= Procedure). Against this back-ground, the course givesan overview of the issues relating to transitional justice concerns with a focus on the twin transitions Energy and Digitisation. Itplaces a special emphasis on the formation of renewable energy communities newly introduced in the CEP and social / behav-iouralaspects of digitisation. Both aspects will play a vital role in the ongoing transition from a rigid and centralized to a decentralizedand sustainable energy system based on renewable sources.

Literatur: Appelbaum, E. et al. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. London: ILR Press;Croonenbroeck, C., Lowitzsch, J. From fossil to renewable energy sources. in Lowitzsch J (2019) Energy Transition – Financingconsumer co-ownership in renewables. Palgrave Macmillan. Elloumi, O. et al. (2019), White Paper - Market Drivers and High-levelArchitecture for IoT-enabled Data marketplaces, AIOTI. Rehmani, M.H. et al. (2018). Integrating renewable energy resources intothe smart grid: Recent devel-opments in information and communication technologies, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 14 (7);
Teilnahmevoraussetzungen: Registration By 1.11.2021 at kelso-professorship@europa-uni.de including matriculation number andthe exact title of the course
Leistungsnachweise: Performance test and credits • 5 and 6 ECTS: regular attendance; oral presentation; term paper around 15pages • 9 ECTS: regular attendance; oral presentation; term paper around 20 pages Students are required to write a paper (80%of the grade) and present their research to the class (20% of the grade). Deadlines Paper submission Upload final presentation ofterm paper topic by 10.02.2022 at 23:59 Finalized term paper by the end of the semester on 31.03.2021.
Termine (präsenz): Fr 17.12.21, 14 - 18 Uhr (HG 162) | Sa 18.12.21, 14 - 18 Uhr (HG 162) | Fr 14.01.22, 14 - 18 Uhr (HG 217) | Sa15.01.22, 14 - 18 Uhr (HG 217) | Fr 04.02.22, 14 - 18 Uhr (HG 162)
Sprache: Englisch

Employee Ownership

5 and 6 ECTS: regular attendance; oral presentation; term paper around 15 pages 9 ECTS: regular attendance; oral presentation; term paper around 20 pages Deadlines Optional: first draft of the term paper by the end of the lecture/exam period onward (only if feedback wanted): WiSe1920: 14/02/2019 Finalized term paper by the end of the semester: WiSe1920 31/03/2020 https://www.wiwi.europa-uni.de/de/studium/pruefungen/index.html https://www.europa-uni.de/de/studium/termine/wintersemester2019.html
Seminar: Zentralbereich Wirtschaft / WPM 6: Wirtschaftspolitik in Europa
Block Ort: HG 104, Veranstaltungsbeginn: 15.10.2019

In the Company of Owners – Employee Share Ownership in SMEs and Start-ups Related to a project funded by the German Federal Ministry of the Economy (BMWI) Description It has been argued that introducing Employee Financial Participation (EFP) in SMEs is difficult because of their limited financial resources. Financing constraints may make pay outs to employees in addition to wages very difficult. Furthermore, an employee’s decision to withdraw from a share ownership plan can involve substantial costs. In addition, implementing an EFP scheme involves considerable expenses. With regards to employee share ownership (ESO) schemes the central problem is that the majority of SMEs are private unlisted firms, thus it is difficult to determine their true value. This may be a disincentive for employees to acquire shares in a company of unknown market value. The company’s owners may fear loss of control if outsiders are able to acquire shares from divesting employees. Share plans are bureaucratic because of the need to observe statutory and legal requirements to comply with securities legislation, etc. These complications cause SMEs to opt for cash profit-sharing schemes (rather than share ownership schemes) as a simpler alternative. On the other hand, problems common to SMEs (business succession, additional financing, staff retention) can be alleviated by employee share ownership plans. Best practice from the UK and France exemplify how EFP can facilitate business succession in SMEs by means of an intermediary vehicle creating a market for shares of unlisted companies. We observe a general trend towards using an intermediary vehicle, e.g., a trust, as custodian of employee shares, because this limits the risk for employee shareholders and allows for leverage and the pooling of voting rights (most recently in the new 2018 law in Austria). The shares are funded, acquired, administrated and represented by the intermediary entity, which unlike an individual employee can, at least partially, fund the acquisition from the company’s profits, dividends and/or a bank loan. ESO schemes in small and micro enterprises can be combined with labour market measures and thus help to reinstate the unemployed. Employee financial participation schemes in SMEs can also be combined with unemployment benefit as in the case from Spain. In other countries also, the unemployment benefit paid in as a lump sum could also be invested in a start-up (e.g., the concept of “Ich-AG” in Germany), but this has not been successful. The distinguishing feature of the Spanish model is that the unemployment benefit has to be invested in a special form of corporation in which the employees own the majority of shares. The seminar discusses these problems and opportunities aginast the background of the most recent developments across the EU 28. Course plan Introduction: formalities; overview LV1: Background: Overview of the forms of Employee Financial Participation; European Policies LV2: tba; LV3: tba; LV4: tba; LV5: Conclusion and oral presentations.

Literatur: European Commission. (2014). European employment policy observatory review - Activating jobseekers through entrepreneurship: Start-up incentives in Europe. Brussels. European Commission. (2016). Communication of 22. November 2016 'Europe's next leaders: the Start-up and Scale-up Initiative' COM(2016) 733 final. European Parliament. (2016). Employee Financial Participation: Spain’s Sociedades Laborales. Briefings for the EMPL Committee (IP/A/EMPL/2016-01, PE 587.300). Rapporteur: S. Schulz, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Brussels. Lowitzsch, J. (2018). Die Entwicklung der Mitarbeiterbeteiligung auf EU-Ebene - Impulse durch Best Practice aus Spanien, Österreich und den USA. in: Beyer/Naumer CSR und Mitarbeiterbeteiligung, Springer Lowitzsch, J. with Iraj Hashi and Sophie Dunsch (2017). Activating the unemployed through Sociedades Laborales in Spain – A potential new EU active labour market policy instrument. Palgrave/McMillan; Lowitzsch, J. with with Iraj Hashi, et. al. (2014). A Study on A Study on the Promotion of Employee Ownership and Participation. prepared for the European Commission DG MARKT , Brussels, 188 p. Lowitzsch, J. with with Iraj Hashi et al. (2012). Financial Participation of Employees in Companies’ Proceeds. Study for the European Parliament, Employment & Social Affairs Committee, Brussels, 2012, 188p.

Teilnahmevoraussetzungen: Registration until 24.10.19 at kelso-professorship@europa-uni.de including immatriculation number and seminar title

Leistungsnachweise: Regular attendance, oral presentation and term paper

Termine: Di 15.10.19 14 - 15 Uhr (HG 104) | Fr 01.11.19 11 - 18 Uhr (HG 104) | Sa 02.11.19 11 - 18 Uhr | Fr 15.11.19 11 - 18 Uhr (HG 104) | Sa 16.11.19 11 - 18 Uhr | Sa 14.12.19 11 - 18 Uhr

Sprache: Englisch

Financing of the Energy Transition(s) and Property Rights IV: New market actors and roles

Seminar: Zentralbereich Wirtschaft / WPM 6: Wirtschaftspolitik in Europa Block Ort: AM 02, Veranstaltungsbeginn: 09.04.2019

Termine: Di 09.04.19 14 - 15 Uhr (AM 02) | Fr 26.04.19 10 - 17 Uhr (HG 104) | Fr 24.05.19 10 - 17 Uhr (HG 104) | Fr 28.06.19 10 - 17 Uhr (HG 104) | Fr 05.07.19 10 - 17 Uhr (GD 311)

Employee Ownership in EU 28 - focus Sociedades Laborales

Seminar: Zentralbereich Wirtschaft / WPM 6: Wirtschaftspolitik in Europa Block Ort: AM 02, Veranstaltungsbeginn: 09.04.2019

Termine: Di 09.04.19 15 - 16 Uhr (AM 02) | Fr 12.04.19 11 - 18 Uhr (HG 104) | Sa 13.04.19 11 - 18 Uhr (HG 217) | Fr 26.04.19 11 - 18 Uhr (HG 104) | Sa 27.04.19 11 - 18 Uhr (HG 104)

Automation, digital revolution and capital concentration: A race for the machine?

Vorlesung:
ZB Wirtschaft, WPM 6

Lowitzsch, Jens und Elhadj Abdoulaye Séne
Financing of the Energy Transition and Property Rights –‘SCORE’ “Supporting Consumer co-Ownership in Renewable Energy”

ZB Wirtschaft, ZB Politik, ZB Recht, WPM 1, WPM 4, WPM 6

This course is a continuation of the seminar from the previous semester; an introductory session at the beginning of the semester will give an overview to the topic. Reorganisation of energy production –The transition from fossil to renewable energy sourcesThe reorganisation of energy production, esp. the transition from fossil to renewable energy sources (“Energy Transition”) is currently acknowledged as a permanent and evolving process. Recognized as one of the main problems in this transition is enabling finance mechanisms that would cover these renewable energy projects in an uncertain and oligopolistic market. This raises the question of whether citizen’s co-ownership in RES that emerged over the past 25 years in some countries is a transitory phenomenon or a condition for the “Energy Transition” and if the latter is the case, how to further develop financial participation mechanisms in the RES sector.The European Commission: Policy shift toward an inclusion of the so-called “Prosumer”In a recent staff paper and a HORIZON call the European Commission postulates that „Consumers should be considered at the heart of the energy system and become active market players“. In this context the following challenges are put forward:

-The future private consumer should be more aware, active, energy sufficient, as well as being a prosumer producing energy for their own consumption, where this is possible.

-Energy efficiency, energy savings and increased use of locally produced, including ownproduced, renewable energy are key tools in addressing fuel poverty.-In this context, engagement actions are needed across Europe in order to achieve behavioural change towards more sustainable choices and decisions for energy.-Although awareness on the benefits of collective consumer action in the field of EE and RES has increased in past years, such action is still hampered by a number of barriers, including financial and regulatory barriers and inconsistencies in grid integration practice. The seminar analyses and develops further a proposal responding to the HORIZON call “EE-06-2016-2017: Engaging private consumers towards sustainable energy” how to facilitate consumers to become co-owners of renewable energy sources (RES).

Literatur: Commission staff working document „Best practices on Renewable Energy Self -consumption“ Accompanying the Commission Communication „Delivering a New Deal for Energy Consumers“ {COM(2015) 339 final} Horizon Call EE-06-2016-2017: Engaging private consumers towards sustainable energy. RAP (2014): „Power Market Operations and System Reliability: A contribution to the market design debate in the Pentalateral Energy Forum“. Study on behalf of Agora Energiewende. Lowitzsch, J. (2015) “Property rights and the financing of renewable energy technologies –How Consumer Stock Ownership Plans 74 contribute to the Energy Transition”, WINIR Working paper Lowitzsch, J. / Goebel, K. (2013) „Vom Verbraucher zum Energieproduzenten. Finanzierung dezentraler Energieproduktion unter Beteiligung von Bürgern als Konsumenten mittels Consumer Stock Ownership Plans(CSOPs)“, ZNER 3/2013

Lowitzsch , Prof. Dr. iur. Jens
Financing of the Energy Transition and Property Rights –The “Prosumer” at the heart of the energy Markets?

ZB Wirtschaft, ZB Politik, ZB Recht, WPM 1, WPM 6

This course is a continuation of the seminar from the previous semester; an introductory session at the beginning of the semester will give an overview to the topic. The course is held in English language. Background: Reorganisation of energy production
–The transition from fossil to renewable energy sources This seminar develops a proposal for how to facilitate consumers to become co-owners of renewable energy sources (RES). The reorganisation of energy production, esp. the transition from fossil to renewable energy sources (“Energy Transition”) is currently acknowledged as a permanent and evolving process. Recognized as one of the main problems in this transition is enabling finance mechanisms that would cover these renewable energy projects in an uncertain and oligopolistic market. This raises the question of whether citizen’s co-ownership in RES that emerged over the past 25 years in some countries is a transitory phenomenon or a condition for the “Energy Transition” and if the latter is the case, how to further develop financial participation mechanisms in the RES sector. The European Commission: Policy shift toward an inclusion of the so called “Prosumer” In a recent staff paper and a HORIZON call the European Commission postulates that „Consumers should be considered at the heart of the energy system and become active market players“. In this context the following challenges are put forward:
• The future private consumer should be more aware, active, energy sufficient, as well as being a prosumer producing energy for their own consumption, where this is possible.
• Energy efficiency, energy savings and increased use of locally produced, including own produced, renewable energy are key tools in addressing fuel poverty.
• In this context, engagement actions are needed across Europe in order to achieve behavioural change towards more sustainable choices and decisions for energy.
• Although awareness on the benefits of collective consumer action in the field of EE and RES has increased in past years, such action is still hampered by a number of barriers, including financial and regulatory barriers and inconsistencies in grid integration practice.
• In addition, insufficient use of relevant ICT solutions and insufficient understanding of energy bills contribute to hampering the achievement of a more sustainable energy system.

The seminar investigates possible answers to meet these challenges in the context of the preparation of a fullyfledged HORIZON 2020 proposal in response to this call.
Focus: Empowering consumers to become co-owners via Consumer Stock Ownership Plans (CSOPs) Key to empower and facilitate consumers to become co-owners of RES is the design of new finance contracts. We use the example of the “Consumer Stock Ownership Plan” (CSOP) as the necessary contract providing a financing mechanism. We focus on wind and photovoltaic power which have two pronounced structural differences to fossils:
(1) they depend on weather and thus are volatile in their power production scheme and (2) they have a marginal cost of production close to zero. CSOPs enable consumers of energy utilities without savings or access to capital credit to acquire productive property, i.e., renewable energy plants while at the same time creating a system of incentives for asset formation. Responding to supply flexibility they tap the potential for demand-side flexibility facilitating smart grids. We analyse how CSOPs can contribute to financing renewable technologies and what particular advantages their dispersed ownership structure has. As a result we show the economic viability of CSOPs contributing to the reorganisation of energy production.
Literature: Commission staff working document „Best practices on Renewable Energy Self-consumption“ Accompanying the commission Communication „Delivering a New Deal for Energy Consumers“ {COM(2015) 339 final} Horizon Call EE
-06-2016-2017: Engaging private consumers towards sustainable energy. RAP (2014): „Power Market Operations and System Reliability: A contribution to the market design debate in the Pentalateral Energy Forum“. Study on behalf of Agora Energiewende. Lowitzsch, J. (2015) “Property rights and the financing of renewable energy technologies – How Consumer Stock Ownership Plans contribute to the Energy Transition”, WINIR Working paper Lowitzsch, J. / Goebel, K. (2013) „Vom Verbraucher zum Energieproduzenten. Finanzierung dezentraler Energieproduktion unter Beteiligung von Bürgern als Konsumenten mittels Consumer Stock Ownership Plans(CSOPs)“, ZNER 3/2013

Lowitzsch, Prof. Jens/ Elhadj Abdoulaye Séne
Activating jobseekers through entrepreneurship: Potential of the concept of Sociedades Laborales as an EU active labour
market policy
ZB Wirtschaft, ZB Politik, ZB Recht, WPM 1, WPM 6

The key to success of SLs: Survival rates, secondary employment, access to capital- Focus: New empirical data on “Sociedades Laborales” in the Basque Country

o The capitalisation of unemployment benefits as a lump sum for start-ups

o The problem of disqualification – SLs becoming “victims of their success”
Overview: Low-threshold limited liability companies in the EU-28
Overview: ALMP start-up incentives in the EU-28
This course is a continuation of the seminar from the previous semester; an introductory session at the beginning of the semester will give an overview to the topic. The course is held in English language.
Introduction: Spanish Sociedades Laborales (SLs) –mostly small and micro enterprises –are a qualified form of conventional corporation, majority-owned by their permanent employees. Unemployed persons can capitalise their unemployment benefits as a lump sum to start a new SL or to recapitalise an existing SL by joining it. This makes SLs similar to start-up subsidies for the unemployed, an established instrument of active labour market policy across the EU. The new Law on Worker-Owned and Participatory Companies of November 2015 substantially modernised the concept of SLs 30 years after its inception. SLs provide an unemployed person who joins or sets up an SL not only with access to capital but with business and entrepreneurial mentoring and practical expertise. These enterprises also play an important role in job creation and expanding secondary employment. They are based on employee ownership whose demonstrated benefits complement the policy aims of ALMPs. While there are no obstacles to transfering the Sociedad Laboral to other Member States, the model has important benefits that make it particularly suitable for combination with existing national start-up incentives for the unemployed. This seminar investigates the potential of SLs as an instrument of ALMP for returning the unemployed to the labor market and also the transferability of the scheme to other EU Member States. Focus: New empirical data on “Sociedades Laborales” in the Basque Country and Spain. The concept of Sociedades Laborales is probably the only employee share ownership scheme across the EU applying to small and micro enterprises. Benefiting only from insignificant fiscal incentives, SLs have flourished over the past 15 years. By the end of 2013, there were over 11,300 SLs providing over 63,000 jobs. However, these official employment figures do not capture independent workers, which according to new CIRIEC data are estimated to account for between 15 and 25 per cent of overall employment. One of the key reasons for the steady growth of the population of SLsis that since 1985, unemployed persons can capitalise their unemployment benefits as a lump sum (instead of monthly payments) either to start a new or to recapitalise an existing SL by joining. Prerequisites to using this mechanism when creating a new worker -owned company are:

(1) To present a viable business plan and;
(2) that the new business agrees to be monitored for three years after its founding. 

In this regard, the setting up of SLs has some similarity with start-up subsidies for unemployed, which is an established instrument of active labour market policy (ALMP) practised in many countries. It is estimated that about a third of SLs involve the capitalisation of unemployment benefits when being founded; however this proportion needs to be investigated more closely using new empirical data. Unlike the start-up subsidies for unemployed, however, SLs are not only set up by unemployed persons but by normal entrepreneurs and typically involve external investors. New data from the Basque Country will be used to calculate the proportion of unemployed as well as regular entrepreneurs in newly founded SLs. As such they are a means of creating social capital and provide an unemployed person joining an existing SL or the setting up of an SL with expertise, entrepreneurial experience as well as with access to capital and not onl with a job. This is important as the scarcity of entrepreneurial skills and knowledge, lack of business and financial support as well as insufficient access to finance or capital resources are among the main barriers to entrepreneurship (European Commission 2014). In this sense support for SLs differs significantly from start-up subsidies employed exclusively in the context of ALMP. Finally, unlike the majority of classical ALMP start-up tools these enterprises have the potential for creating additional jobs.
Literature:
• Lowitzsch, J. , Dunsch, S., Hashi, I., Séne, A. et al (2016 forthcoming), „Activating the unemployed through Sociedades Laborales in Spain Potential of the concept as an EU active labour market policy”.
• European Commission (2014), „European Employment Policy Observatory Review -Activating jobseekers through entrepreneurship: Start-up incentives in Europe“ Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit C.1, Brüssels.
• German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, BMAS (2010), From unemployment to self-employment: Facilitating transition in the recovery, International Conference organised by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS), in cooperation with the OECD (ELSA and LEED), Berlin, 7–8 October, http://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF
-Publikationen/a809eunemployment-to-self-employment.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.

Lowitzsch, Jens
Financing of the Energy Transition and Property Rights – The law and economics of decentralised energy production

ZB Po, ZB Wi, ZB Po, WPM 1, WPM 6
Energy Transition: The transition from fossil to renewable energy sources-Facilitating the reallocation of property rights through the design of new finance contracts-Financing decentralized energy production with the Consumer Stock Ownership Plan (CSOP) Background: Reorganisation of energy production – The transition from fossil to renewable energy sourcesThis seminar discusses propoals for a contractual solution to the problem of financing decentralised renewable energy production. The reorganisation of energy production, esp. the transition from fossil to renewable energy sources (“Energy Transition”) is currently acknowledged as a permanent and evolving process. Recognized as one of the main problems in this transition is enabling finance mechanisms that
would cover these renewable energy projects in an uncertain and oligopolistic market. This raises the question of whether citizen’s co-ownership in RES that emerged over the past 25 years in some countries is a transitory phenomenon or a condition for the “Energy Transition” and if the latter is the case, how to further develop financial participation mechanisms in the RES sector. Institutional economics: Theories of property rights, transaction costs and incomplete contracts.The analysis is based on the theories of property rights, transaction costs and incomplete contracts, which provide a rationale for decentralised energy production. According to standard literature, the traditional market for energy production based on fossils, which generally requires great sums of capital, has allocated property rights in the form of very large organisations, which benefit from economies of scale and are efficiently recouping this capital. That is, large organisations have formed through vertical integration based on transaction costs efficiency and second-best investment incentives. Thus, it is assumed that these technologies are and will be the most economically efficient. However, this interpretation of the energy market assumes that the development of technology is independent from the allocation of property rights. To improve this standard view and to account for the path dependency of organisations becoming inefficient under changed circumstances and the inability of potentially competitive forms of organisation
to emerge it is necessary to include technology as an endogenous factor. Consequently, technology runs a two-way causality with property rights. That is, if new forms of property rights are to be enabled (i.e., ownership and control of decentralised production) this would, in turn, enable alternative forms of technology (i.e., renewables). Designing new finance contracts: Consumer Stock Ownership Plans (CSOPs) Key to facilitate this reallocation of property rights is the design of new finance contracts. We use the
example of the “Consumer Stock Ownership Plan” (CSOP) as the necessary contract providing a financing mechanism. We focus on wind and photovoltaic power which have two pronounced structural differences to fossils: (1) they depend on weather and thus are volatile in their power production scheme and (2) they have a marginal cost of production close to zero. CSOPs enable consumers of energy utilities without savings or access to capital credit to acquire productive property, i.e., renewable energy plants while at the same time creating a system of incentives for asset formation. Responding to supply flexibility they tap the potential for demand-side flexibility facilitating smart grids. We analyse how CSOPs can contribute to financing renewable technologies and what particular advantages their dispersed ownership structure has. As a result we show the economic viability of CSOPs contributing to the reorganisation of energy production.
Literature RAP (2014): „Power Market Operations and System Reliability: A contribution to the market design debate in the Pentalateral Energy Forum“. Study on behalf of Agora Energiewende. Lowitzsch, J. / Yildiz, Ö. / Lambais, G. (2015) “Property rights and the financing of renewable energy technologies – How Consumer Stock Ownership Plans contribute to the Energy Transition”, WINIR Working paper Lowitzsch, J. / Goebel, K. (2013) „Vom Verbraucher zum Energieproduzenten. Finanzierung dezentraler Energieproduktion unter Beteiligung von Bürgern als Konsumenten mittels Consumer Stock Ownership Plans (CSOPs)“, ZNER 3/2013

Lowitzsch, Jens/ Séne, Elhadj Abdoulaye
Activating jobseekers through entrepreneurship: ALMP start-up incentives –The Spanish Sociedades Laborales, best practise?
6/9 ECTS
ZB Wirtschaft, ZB Politik, ZB Recht, WPM 1, WPM 6

ALMP -Start-up subsidies across the EU 28: Concepts, problems, empirical evidence -The capitalisation of unemployment benefits as a lump sum for start -ups-Focus: “Sociedades Laborales” – the Spanish concept of worker owned companies- EU policy making Introduction Employee financial participation (EFP) in Spain largely takes the form of Sociedades Laborales (SL=Worker-Owned Companies). This concept is probably the only employee share ownership scheme across the EU applying to small and micro enterprises. Benefiting only from insignificant fiscal incentives, SLs have flourished over the past 15 years. By the end of 2013, there were over 11,300 SLs providing over 63,000 jobs and representing 3.5% of Spain’s private sector firms with more than two workers.One of the key reasons for the steady growth of the population of SLs is that since 1985, unemployed persons can capitalise their unemployment benefits as a lumpsum (instead of monthly payments) either to start a new or to recapitalise an existing SL by joining. Prerequisites to using this mechanism when creating a new worker -owned company – with a minimum of three founders – are: (1) To present a viable business plan, which is then screened by a SL development program and scrutinised by the unemployment compensation system; and (2) That the new business agrees to be monitored for three years after its founding. The associations of SLs (e.g., ASLE, CONFESAL) play a key rolein support and promotion of Worker-Owned Companies in Spain, providing, among others, coaching and assistance. ALMP-Start-up subsidies across the EU 28: Concepts, problems, empirical evidence Start-up subsidies such as the German “Gründungszuschuss”, the Austrian „Unternehmensgründungsprogramm“ (UGP) or the Finnish “‘starttiraha” are important and common elements of ALMPs. In 2014 the European Employment Policy Observatory (EEPO) analysed how EU countries have been supporting unemployed people to set up their own businesses through start-up incentives. This review finds that successful policies are in particular those that (a) supply the unemployed not only with financial but more importantly with business support and targeted coaching; (b) combine ALMP measures with other relevant services for entrepreneurs; (c) develop an appropriate mix of different support measures; and (d) while providing minimum income security embrace the pre-start-up and start-up phase and offer continuing guidance and coaching. However, start-up subsidies have limitations in tackling unemployment. One problem is that while they bear substantial cost, the employment effect may only be temporary. Another problem can be “false” or “bogus” self-employment, i.e., dependent self-employment. Finally, the scale of any employment effect is limited, as the number of businesses that go on to employ other people tends to be the minority. But even when implemented successfully over time two difficulties with regard to their outcomes arise: (1) deadweight losses, i.e., that a part of the unemployed who are finally hired would have probably found employment without the measure; and (2) displacement effects, i.e., that subsidies are distorting competition when creating employment in one firm – and increasing its competitiveness – at the same time reduce it in another.“Sociedades Laborales” as an ALMP-Start-up subsidy With regard to the mechanism of capitalising unemployment benefits, the setting up of SLs has some similarity with start-up subsidies for unemployed, which is an established instrument of active labour market policy (ALMP) practised in many countries. Unlike the start-up subsidies for unemployed, however, SLs are not only set up by unemployed persons but by normal entrepreneurs and typically involve external investors. It is estimated that about a third of SLs involve the capitalisation of unemployment benefits when being founded. As such they are a means of creating social capital and provide an unemployed person joining an existing SL or the setting up of an SL with expertise, entrepreneurial experience as well as with access to capital and not only with a job. This is important as the scarcity of entrepreneurial skills and knowledge, lack of business and financial support as well as insufficient access to finance or capital resources are among the main barriers to entrepreneurship (European Commission 2014). In this sense support for SLs differs significantly from start-up subsidies employed exclusively in the context of ALMP. Finally, unlike the majority of classical ALMP start-up tools these enterprises have the potential for creating additional jobs. Against this background the seminar investigates the potential of the concept of Sociedades Laborales as an instrument of ALMP to reactivate the unemployed, and the transferability of the scheme to other EU Member States.

Literature: Vogel, A. Lowitzsch, J. (2012), „Case Study Spain: Sociedades Laborales“ in Lowitzsch/Hashi et al. Financial Participation of Employees in Companies’ Proceeds, Study for the European Parliament, Employment & Social Affairs Committee, Brussels, 2012. European Commission (2014), „European Employment Policy Observatory Review -Activating jobseekers through entrepreneurship: Start-up incentives in Europe“Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit C.1, Brüssels. German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, BMAS (2010), From unemployment to self-employment: Facilitating transition in the recovery, International Conference organised by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS), in cooperation with the OECD (ELSA and LEED), Berlin, 7–8 October, http://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen/a809e-unemployment-to-self-employment.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
.

Lowitzsch, Jens
Swimming in the Spree? – Employing a Consumer Stock Ownership Plan (CSOP) to purify Berlin City surface water bodies
6/9 ECTS
ZB Po, ZB Wi, ZB Re, WPM 1, WPM 6

Overview: Berlin water pollution & LURITEC “Stormwater tanks” (water purification) Actor analysis, political setting and barriers to implementation Introduction to CSOP-financing, modelling and drafting of the “Berlin Water CSOP” Developing a roadmap for implementation in cooperation with LURI Watersystems GmbH Urban waters may prove an important factor for a city's living quality. They can offer pleasurable scenery, spaces for relaxation and the occasional refreshing swimming experience. Bathing in the Spree? For many of the capital’s residents this still is an alien thought, as urban rivers just seem 'naturally' tainted. In Berlin for example, whenever heavy rain clouds form on the horizon soon after, a nauseating stench will rise from the water front, banishing any desire to be close to the river, let alone in it. This seminar will look into the reason for this on-going contamination of the river Spree, present a simple and elegant solution to the problem, and tie in with an on-going project implementing and
above all financing said solution.The Problem The river Spree as such is a quite clear stretch of water, if it wasn't for periodic contamination from the city's sewer systems. In times of heavy rainfalls Berlin's sewer system is designed to release its mixed
contents of drainage and human wastes directly into the river. This regular contamination not only makes the river hazardous for swimming but threatens the aquatic life of the Spree in general. The engineer Ralf Steeg proposed a simple solution to this predicament. “Stormwater tanks”, installed as artificial islands near the waterfront, would buffer the excess sewage and later release it back into the system. Though while it's technical aspects are already extensively researched and tested with a pilot
facility in the East harbour, the project after over ten years of existence has yet to see realization. Its major obstacles were sufficient financing and political goodwill. As an instrument to overcome both obstacles the seminar will focus on the Consumer Stock Ownership Plan (CSOP) as a financing  vehicle. The solution: Financing the LURITECH system through a CSOP
In a CSOP consumers acquire ownership of capital stocks producing a certain commodity. The acquisition is to a large part financed by a bank loan, which is paid back from the returns of the acquired property. The CSOP is thus a vehicle to simultaneously raise financing and open capital ownership to citizens who were formerly excluded from it. The returns for the CSOP are on the one hand saved expenses for past pollution clean up (e.g., the Berlin Oxygen ship, annual cost 450,000 Euro) and on the other hand direct revenues (e.g., from renting out the artificial islands). Integrating citizens into such
an important infrastructure project is key to the much needed political appeal. The seminar will set out as a hands-on research approach into partly still uncharted territory. It is thus meant as a challenge and an opportunity for students of law, economics, business administration and political sciences alike, that when successful may indeed allow to experience its results while going for a summer dip in the Spree.

Lowitzsch, Jens /Sene, Elhadj Abdoulaye
Financing Productive Property for the Many: Private Investment Credit – Actors, Mechanisms, Instruments
6/9 ECTS
ZB Po, ZB Wi, ZB Re, WPM 1, WPM 6

Property ownership – especially that of productive property – is the material foundation of individual political and economic freedom. The economy does not gratuitously provide either capital instruments or confer ownership. Finance performs these functions by allocating capital credit needed for investment. But there is a condition: to qualify for a capital acquisition loan the borrower must put up collateral as insurance that the loan will be repaid. Those without capital assets are excluded from capital
credit used to create new capital. The exception to this rule is consumer credit – today often available at 0% financing cost – which, however, does not serve to acquire the things that produce wealth. And in fact, the vast majority of citizens do not own any kind of property not to mention property generating additional income. Thus they are impeded from access to economic opportunity, as well as from the attainment of economic security and leisure. Eye of the needle: Access to capital credit traditionally the way to asset formation for the poor is savings through forgone consumption. But what can you save when you have barely enough to make ends meet? When financing business activities, i.e., productive property – the bottleneck is access to capital credit. While the majority of the population deprived of assets (and thus collateral) is saving through renouncing consumption, a small wealthy minority profits from access to capital credit. This is the essence of investment: Costs (also those of credit financing) are covered from the future earnings of the acquired property. Thus, working poor are invisibly but effectively shut out of acquiring the things that produce more and more of industrial wealth, i.e., productive property. The average capitalless employee is limited to owning his labour. Solutions proposed Conventional solutions to the dilemma described often propose to redistribute existing capital instead to broaden access to the formation of new capital. However, confiscating capital to redistribute it wouldviolate private property rights. Further, the costs of redistribution are substantial and in the form of elevated taxation may hamper economic development.The counter model to solve this problem of property distribution was proposed in 1958 by the American lawyer and investment banker Louis O. Kelso based on the financial infrastructure of a free market democracy: Instead of depriving owners of their private property, non-owners should be enabled to become owners through an effective opportunity to participate in the success of their firm not only as wage-earners but also as shareholders. More recently the idea to provide access to capital credit has been popularised in both developing countries (e.g., M. Yunus’ Grameen Bank,) as well as in advanced economies (e.g., Crowd funding). Of the different solutions that have been put forward the following will be discussed in more detail: Micro-credit
– a means of extending credit, usually in the form of small loans with no collateral, to non-traditional borrowers such as the poor in rural or underdeveloped areas often guaranteed by members of the borrower’s community. Peer-to-peer lending/investing
– is on the one hand the practice of lending money to unrelated individuals, or "peers", without going through a traditional financial intermediary such as a bank or other traditional financial institution. On the other hand investing money in notes takes place online via a peer-to-peer lending/investing company. The notes can be sold as a security and so investors can exit the investment before the borrower repays the debt.
Crowd-Funding
– The use of small amounts of capital from a large number of individuals to finance a new business venture, typically via the internet.
Consumer Stock Ownership Plans (CSOPs)
– are designed to make consumers the co-owners of utility-producing companies typically on regulated markets with guaranteed prices, regulated market access and long-term relationships between producer and consumer. It can involve government guarantees for loans to CSOP-trusts, whose beneficiaries have insufficient assets to secure loans.
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)
– use the borrowing power of a company to acquire shares of that very company for its employees. The cost of credit financing is covered from the future earnings of the shares.
Islamic banking, Musharaka – a type of joint venture or business partnership in which the financing
partner is one of the several investors.
The seminar focuses on questions of the normative framework and that of risk management. The aim is to assess the efficiency of different models, discussing the characteristic aspects related to the different types of solutions (i.e., micro vs. macro, regulated vs. unregulated).
Literature: Dr. Moritz Renner: "Banking Without Banks"? Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen des Peer-to-Peer Lending,LSK 2014, 431027. Person-to-Person Lending: New Regulatory Challenge Could Emerge as the Inndustry Grows. US Government Accountability Office, GAO-11-613, July 2011. Banking without Banks. The Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21597932-offering-both-borrowers-and-lenders-better-deal-websites-put-two 

Vovk, Ruslana / Lowitzsch, Jens
The 29th Regime - an alternative approach to EU integration allowing less law-making

ZB Wi, ZB Po, ZB Re, WPM 1, WPM 6

In the European Reform Treaty of Lisbon, entered into force on 1 December 2009,the EU reformed its decision-making processes in particular by giving more co-decision rights to the European Parliament. Summarizing the alterations introduced by the Reform Treaty the seminar specifically addresses policy instruments and the as -sociated decision-making processes. Using the example of employee financial parti -cipation (EFP) a new instrument for European integration, the so-called 29 thRegime is introduced. Law making at the EU level – Financial Participation, a Challenge for Legal Policy In the context of an EU pilot project currently implemented by the Kelso-Chair the EU Commi ssion, in particular Commissioner Michel Barnier, has committed to improving the legal framework for EFP. Best practice cases show that a stable legal framework supporting EFP ensure sustainable employee share ownership (ESO) while less successful cases clearly show that discontinuation of political support leads to a rapid decline. The “Building Block Approach” to employee financial participation presented in this context takes into consideration existing national participation models and best practice with regards to both the type of participation scheme and the incentives that may be granted based on the principle of voluntariness. Focus: the 29th regime as an  alternative tool for EU legal integration Given the difficulties in finding a solution that balances both European and national needs, the most feasible way seems to be the so-called 29th regime. Such an optional European EFP regime would be conceived as a "2nd Regime" in each Member State, thus providing parties with an option between two regimes for EFP schemes, one originating in national legislation and one – i.e., the 29th regime – in European legislation.  The 29th regime would be defined at EU level and enacted by EU instruments, i.e., a EU regulation. At the same time, containing provisions of mandatory law it would ensure a high level of protection for employees, similar to those granted by the EU or national mandatory rules. Last but not least, a crucial point is to limit the option of the parties to a choice of the entire instrument thus avoiding the possibility of "cherrypicking" or a “race to the bottom” with regards to quality standards.
Literatur: Own-Initiative Opionion  INT/499 CESE 758/2010 The 28th regime – less law-making.; Lowitzsch, J., Neuausrichtung der Sozialpolitik im Europäischen Re- formvertrag Umsetzungsprobleme am Beispiel der Mitarbeiterbeteiligung, ZESAR 5-
6/2010. ; Lowitzsch, J. et al., Financial Participation for a New Social Europe [DE / EN / FR / IT / PL / RU], Berlin/Rome 2008/09, 144 p. ; Lowitzsch, J. / Hashi, I. et al., Employee Financial Participation (EFP) in Companies’ Proceeds, Study for the
European Parliament, Sept 2012.;  http://www.intercentar.de/de/forschung/schwer

Transforming energy consumers into energy producers – The German Renewable Energy
CSOP
ECTS: 6/9
ZB Po, ZB Wi, ZB Recht, WPM 1, WPM 6

Background: Sustanability and the tragedy of the commons

A society based on a paradigm that tends to overload the capacity of its ecosystem must inevitably change in time or perish. The history of the mythical Easter Island Rapa Nui illustrates the doom that awaits a people who destroys its own habitat. In the year  800, when Polynesian settlers arrived, Rapa Nui was entirely wooded with palms. The islanders began to cut down the trees, at first for farmland and firewood, then to build canoes and houses, and finally to manufacture sledges for transporting their enormous stone statues to the coast. At some point a fierce competition broke out between clans to build statues even more monumental. Some 850 years later the last tree fell. Erosion set in, bringing agriculture to a stop. Materials needed for making canoes to hunt tunas were no longer to be had. Hunger set in; then war, and an ancient once-thriving civilization came to its end. A sustainable economy can most probably be achieved only by measures that make more efficient use of resources, doing more with less, and – while ceasing to depend on growth – at the same time downsize production.The changes required must also repair the damage that has been done. Climate change illustrates the problem. If energy consumption were arrested at the current level, global warming and  resource depletion would only be slowed down, not stopped. Ecologic sustainability through energy autonomy Sustainable growth? This paradoxical term is sometimes used to suggest that sustainability is a logical consequence of steady economic growth. Former U.S. president George W. Bush justified his refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 with the words:  “Our refusal is based on common sense, which tells us that continuous economic growth is the key to environmental progress”. The implicit premise of this belief turns means into end; in fact, Bush was very likely concerned about the growth of industrial-punkt-mitarbeiterbeteiligung/

Lowitzsch, Jens /Lechevalier, Arnaud
New B/Orders of Social Europe in the Course of the Euro Crisis – Property, the Welfare State and Distributive Justice

The compact course is co-organised by Arnaud Lechavalier in the context of the partnership with the University Panthéon-  Sorbonne (Paris 1) and takes place in Italy with the support of our local host the Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli. The central idea is to establish an interdisciplinary network for master and doctoral students from the participating institutions and a platform to develop a large-scale research proposal.  The course discusses the fault lines and tectonic shifts in the EU structure caused by the financial crises, which directly affect the future of Social Europe and its welfare states. The aim is to examine the dynamics of B/Orders of Social Europe in respect to the functions of property and to distributive justice through a systematic study of the social conversions caused by the Euro Crisis in several EU Member States. In particular we investigate:
• the consequences of the financial crisis to the welfare state at the national level in two large Euro countries (Germany, France, Italy) and in three non-Eurocountries (Great Britain, Denmark, Poland) from a comparative perspective.
•the policy responses to questions of governance and related issues affecting social Europe at the EU as well as at the national level.
•potential remedies to the acknowledged imbalances (labour markets, inequalities, etc.) are explored with particular emphasis on Employee Financial Participation.

Lowitzsch, Jens / Koc, Gyula
Employee Share Ownership, Social Capital & the Motivation Paradox

The seminar examines, if and how employee share ownership (ESO) can contribute to the building of social capital. Basis of the investigation is a discussion of  organisa-tional social capital on the one hand and the different forms of employee financial participation (EFP) on the other. Is employee ownership associated with divergencies in organisational social capital? With regard to the incentive effects, EFP schemes are expected to positively influence employees‘ motivation and commitment, to reduce internal conflicts because of the compliance of employer and employee interests, to reduce labour turnover and absenteeism, thus resulting in higher individual and company productivity. However there is an interdependency between participation as such. While financial participation may provide employees with the incentive for maximal involvement, direct participation gives them the tools to realise it... The aim of the seminar is to critically question the advantages of ESO regarding the settings and attitudes of employees and to view them through the lens of social capital. This perspective has been rarely applied in EFP-research, although over the past decades it has gained increasing importance on the scene of economics and sociology. The question is if there are divergencies in the organisational social capital, as-sociated with trust, norms of reciprocity, organisational commitment, organisational identity, and justice between two types of companies, i.e., those with broad-based ESO schemes, and those without such schemes. The Motivation Paradox The expectation that employees improve their performance when offered external,usually monetary rewards, rests on two assumptions: Firstly, „that increasing performance-contingent incentives will increase motivation and effort” and secondly, “that this increase in motivation and effort will result in improved performance”. The “motivation paradox” contradicts these assumptions. It occurs when an external re-ward decreases a person ́s motivation to perform a task: While for tasks involving only mechanical skills, i.e. manual tasks which do not require any thinking or creativity (e.g. working at an assembly line) higher bonuses lead to better performances, for tasks that require only rudimentary cognitive skills, a larger reward leads to poorer results. Can employee share ownership schemes alleviate the motivation paradox?Exploring differences in the organisational social capital between traditionally owned companies and companies with ESO schemes the seminar investigates the possible positive link between ESO, social capital and motivation.  Against this background the question to which extent  employee share ownership can mitigate the effects of the “motivation paradox” is looked upon.

Vovk, Ruslana / Lowitzsch, Jens

The 29th Regime - an alternative approach to EU integration allowing less law-making

ZB Wi, ZB Po, ZB Re, WPM 1, WPM 6
Seminar

In the European Reform Treaty of Lisbon, entered into force on 1 December 2009, the EU reformed its decision-making processes in particular by giving more co-decision rights to the European Parliament. Summarizing the alterations introduced by the Reform Treaty the seminar specifically addresses policy instruments and the associated decision-making processes. Using the example of employee financial participation (EFP) a new instrument for European integration, the so-called 29th Regime is introduced. Law making at the EU level – Financial Participation, a Challenge for Legal Policy In the context of an EU pilot project currently implemented by the Kelso-Chair the EU Commission, in particular Commissioner Michel Barnier, has committed to improving the legal framework for EFP. Best practice cases show that a stable legal framework supporting EFP ensure sustainable employee share ownership (ESO) while less successful cases clearly show that discontinuation of political support leads to a rapid decline. The “Building Block Approach” to employee financial participation presented in this context takes into consideration existing national participation models and best practice with regards to both the type of participation scheme and the incentives that may be granted based on the principle of voluntariness.  Focus: the 29th regime as an alternative tool for EU legal integration Given the difficulties in finding a solution that balances both European and national needs, the most feasible way seems to be the so-called 29th regime. Such an option - al European EFP regime would be conceived as a "2nd Regime" in each Member State, thus  providing parties with an option between two regimes for EFP schemes, one originating in national legislation and one – i.e., the 29th regime – in European legislation.  The 29th regime would be defined at EU level and enacted by EU instruments, i.e., a EU regulation. At the same time, containing provisions of mandatory law it would ensure a high level of protection for employees, similar to those granted by the EU or national mandatory rules. Last but not least, a crucial point is to limit the option of the parties to a choice of the entire instrument thus avoiding the possibility of "cherry-picking" or a “race to the bottom” with regards to quality standards.
Literatur: Own-Initiative Opionion  INT/499 CESE 758/2010 The 28th regime – less law-making.; Lowitzsch, J., Neuausrichtung der Sozialpolitik im Europäischen Re - formvertrag Umsetzungsprobleme am Beispiel der Mitarbeiterbeteiligung, ZESAR 5- 6/2010. ; Lowitzsch, J. et al., Financial Participation for a New Social Europe [DE / EN / FR / IT / PL / RU], Berlin/Rome 2008/09, 144 p. ; Lowitzsch, J. / Hashi, I. et al., Employee Financial Participation (EFP) in Companies’ Proceeds, Study for the European Parliament, Sept 2012.;  http://www.intercentar.de/de/forschung/schwer-punkt-mitarbeiterbeteiligung/

Lowitzsch, Jens / Goebel, Katarzyna

Implementation of Consumer Stock Ownership Plans (CSOPs)

This course is a continuation of the seminars in English language from previous semesters; an introductory session at the beginning of the semester will give an overview to the topic. Financing capital ownership of a renewable energy plant through a CSOP The vast majority of citizens in industrial societies do not own any kind of productive property. Thus, they are impeded from wider participation in civil society and from access to economic opportunity, as well as from the attainment of economic security and leisure. The “society of owners” is simultaneously a “society of non-owners”. Interestingly, the catastrophe of 2008 has occasioned very little demand for radical financial, fiscal or ownership reforms. One of the core questions today is, how to open up economic opportunity to the majority of citizens enabling them to become owners of productive assets. In the economies of the North African transition countries this is ever truer, as most of the capital assets were concentrated in the hands of the former autocratic rulers, now ousted. Against this background, the implementation of CSOPs in the Energy sector with a focus on renewable energies is simulated for different scenarios (in Germany, Poland & North African transition countries). A Consumer Stock Ownership Plan (CSOP) is for consumers of public utilities what an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) is for corporate employees. Both are forms of a leveraged buyout, which enables employees/consumers to acquire productive capital. The CSOP was designed to make consumers the co/-owners of utility-producing companies. As the CSOP was designed for regulated markets with guaranteed prices, regulated market access and long-term relationships between producer and consumer, the energy market is predestined. A CSOP trust can be built for a renewable energy plant, e.g. a biogas reactor, a solar panel plant, a windmill or a geothermic drill. Unique characteristics of the Energy-CSOP are:
-Promotion: (1) decentralized energy production; (2) energy self-sufficiency; (3) wealth creation;
-Change of shareholders unproblematic (-> use of a Trust); deferred taxation of the shares;
-Flexible low-threshold concept without personal liability (-> use of a Holding);
-Small investment risk-> mains connection & feed-in-tariffs guarantee sale of the electricity;
-Combination with KfW-Programs to support renewable energy with a low interest rate;
-Scalable investment with a short amortization period (e.g. for wind turbines 6-7 years)

Literatur: Lowitzsch, J. „The Property Question in the North African Transition Countries“ Outline of Conceptual Frame for Future Cooperation; Lowitzsch, J. / Goebel, K. „Vom Verbraucher zum Energieproduzenten. Finanzierung dezentraler Energie produktion unter Beteiligung von Bürgern als Konsumenten mittels Consumer Stock Ownership Plans (CSOPs)“, ZNER 3/2013 Goebel, K. „CSOPs in the energy sector of North Africa-a proposal for the European Union’s aid initiative for transition states”, Masterthesis 2012

Lowitzsch, Jens / Suarsana, Denis

The Property-Owning Democracy –a non-socialist concept for a more egalitarian distribution of wealth

ZB Wirtschaft, WPM 6
This course covers the evolution of the idea of a Property-Owning Democracy which was first developed in early 20th century Great Britain. At the height of the industrial revolution British conservatives were aiming at providing a concept of egalitarian wealth distribution to challenge the socialist ideologies, which were gaining political momentum throughout Europe at that time. In order to contain the increasing inequality in the distribution of wealth caused by an intensifying concentration of capital ownership, workers were to be encouraged and enabled to become both property as well as capital owners; however, in practice this approach remained mostly theoretical. This basic idea has been adopted and advanced by a number of philosophers, researchers and politicians in Europe and the U.S. who acknowledged the economic and motivational potential as well as the necessity of private property rights (and Capitalism). At the same time they aspired to identify new ways to establish a more equal distribution of wealth among the population. The seminar is divided into four sections. The first section discusses the basic theoretical concepts of private property as well as the different attempts to justify existing inequality in its distribution and the hence political ideologies, i.e. Liberalism, Social Democracy and Socialism. The second part focusses on the history of the idea of the Property-Owning Democracy analyzing and discussing different theoretical concepts developed in the field of political philosophy throughout the 20th century taking into consideration the respective economic, social and historical situation. Part three introduces major examples of the implementation of these concepts of Property-Owning Democracy into political reality –namely (a) the concepts of Employee Financial Participation and Employee Stock Ownership Plans, (b) the social policy agenda of the British government under the rule of Margaret Thatcher as well as (c) the US-American idea of creating a society of home owners –with the latter being identified as the major trigger of the most recent subprime crisis. Finally, the current state of the Property-Owning Democracy is examined most notably by identifying policy measures that are motivated by these ideas as well as by discussing the current and future challenges and opportunities the concept is facing in Europe.
Literatur: Torrance, D. (2010): Noel Skelton and the Property-Owning Democracy, Biteback Publishing, London.Rawls, J. (2001): Justice as Fairness –A Restatement, edited by Erin Kelly, Harvard University Press, Harvard.O'Neill, M./T. Williamson (2012): Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and beyond, Blackwell Publishing, Cichester, West Sussex. Meade, J. E. (2013): Efficiency, Equality and the Ownership of Property, Routledge Revivals, Routledge, London.Kelso, L./M. Adler (1958): The Capitalist Manifesto, Random House, New York. Howell, D.(1981): Freedom and Capital: Prospects for the Property -Owning Democracy, Basil Blackwell Publisher, Oxford

Property, the Welfare State and Distributional Justice

ZB Po, ZB Re, ZB Wi, WPM 1, WPM 6

This course is a continuation of the seminars in English language from previous semesters; an introductory session at the beginning of the semester will give an overview to the topic. The seminar has three parts; the first one analyses the effects of the financial crisis with regard to inequality and the distribution of property ownership. -> The focus is on the question, if, and to what extent the observed effects are economically dysfunctional and thus endanger the European Union as such. The second part looks upon the answers and concrete reactions of policy makers to the crisis and their effects on the sustainability of the welfare state an on sovereign indebtedness.
-> Issues of distributive justice and equalization of resources and burdens are investigated. The third part explores alternative economic models.
> It focuses on the question to what extend an economic policy based on the broadening of productive property could serve as a counter model to the current mainstream.

Literatur:
Jens Lowitzsch „Bankenkrise, Staateninsolvenz und systemische Risiken. Zur Neuordnung des Finanzsektors“ MES Perspektiven 1/2011 S. 31 ff. (English version available) Jens Lowitzsch „Property, the welfare state and distributive justice –New (b)orders in the EU in the course of the „Euro Crisis“ Project proposal; Jens Lowitzsch „The property question in the North African transition countries“ Outline of
conceptual frame for future cooperation;

The Capitalist Manifesto –Labour vs. capital?
ECTS: 6/9
ZB Po, ZB Re, ZB Wi, WPM 1, WPM 6

This course is a continuation of the seminars in English language from previous semesters; an introductory session at the beginning of the semester will give an overview to the topic. Since the industrial revolution, productive capital in the form of machines and systems has assumed an ever more dominant role in the industrial production process in comparison to labour. As a result, the owners of these productive assets receive a growing share of market-sourced income, with an ever smaller proportion going to the owners of human labour power. The shift between factors of production in favour of capital is exacerbated by technological progress and its embodiment in automation. Recent academic work on the decline of the labour income share has pointed to the role of capital accumulation and capital-augmenting technical change, which has been strongly biased against the low-educated. As early as 1958, the American corporate lawyer and merchant banker Louis O. Kelso presented a proposal for dealing with this problem, and an analysis of its fundamental causes, in his book “The Capitalist Manifesto“. He invented the prototype of the leveraged buyout to finance ownership of productive property for employees, later to be known as the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). Compulsory reading before 1st seminar session: Kelso, Louis O. / Adler, Mortimer, J. “The Capitalist Manifesto”, Random House, New York, 1958; downloadable at: http://www.kelsoinstitute.org/download.html

Literatur: Kelso, Louis O. / Hetter, Patricia “Two-Factor Theory: The Economics of Reality”, Vintage Books, Random House, New York, 1967.Lem, Stanisław „Dzienniki gwiazdowe -/Podróż dwudziesta czwarta Ijona Tichego” (The Star Diaries -The 24th Voyage of Ijon Tichy), Zbiór Sezam i inne opowiadania, 1954.Jens Lowitzsch, Iraj Hashi et al. “Employee Financial Participation (EFP) in Companies’ Proceeds” Study for the European Parliament Sept 2012. Jens Lowitzsch et al. Financial Participation for a New Social Europe [DE / EN / FR / IT / PL /
RU] Berlin/Rome 2008/09, 144 p.

EU integration and legal harmonisation -The 28th regime as an innovative policy tool

ECTS: 6/9
ZB Po, ZB Re, ZB Wi, WPM 1, WPM 2, WPM 6
Seminar

This course is the continuation of the Seminar in English language (Summer 2012) –for new participants an introductory session at the beginning of the semester will give an overview to the topic. In the European Reform Treaty of Lisbon, entered into force on 1 December 2009, the EU for the first time expressly commits itself to the European Social Model as one of the pillars of its policy. Summarizing the alterations introduced by the Reform Treaty in the field of social policy the seminar specifically addresses policy instruments and the associated decision-
making processes. The example of employee participation, in this case specifically of a European concept for employee financial participation (EFP), will be used to develop options for implementing similar concepts in the political sphere. The PEPPER IV Report presentedconclusive evidence for a significant rise in EFP in the EU-27 between 2000 and 2005. The most recent 2010 round of cross-country surveys now confirms these empirical findings noting that the expansion of EFP in Europe continues in spite of the financial crisis, albeit at a much slower rate. Best practice cases show that a stable legal framework supporting EFP ensure sustainable employee share ownership (ESO). By contrast, less successful cases clearly show that discontinuation of political support leads to a rapid decline and indicate that the stability of political support is more important than the volume of incentives. The “Building block approach” to employee financial participation presented in this context takes into consideration existing national participation models and best practice with regards to both the type of participation scheme and the incentives that may be granted based on the principle of voluntaryness. As an alternative to the creation of a European Recommendation or Directive on financial participation, the application of existing national Company Law rooted in the 2nd Council Directive on Company Law is looked upon in the context of the "Open Method of Coordination" (OMC). Further, the amendment of existing European Company Law, i.e., the European Company Statute is considered. Given the above described difficulties in finding a solution that balances both European and national needs, the most feasible way seems to be the so-called 28th regime. Such an optional European EFP-regime would be conceived as a "2nd Regime" in each Member State, thus providing parties with an option between two regimes for EFP schemes, one originating in national legislation and one –i.e., the 28th regime –in European legislation. The 28th regime would be defined at EU level and enacted by EU instruments, i.e., a EU-Regulation. At the same time containing provisions of mandatory law it would ensure a high level of protection for employees, similar to those granted by the EU or national mandatory rules. Last but not least, a crucial point is to limit the option of the parties to a choice of the entire instrument thus avoiding the possibility of "cherrypicking" or a “race to the bottom” with regards to quality standards. Of course, even as an optional sectoral instrument the 28th regime requires a set of general principles of private law.

Literatur:
Jens Lowitzsch, Neuausrichtung der Sozialpolitik im Europäischen Reformvertrag Umsetzungsprobleme am Beispiel der Mitarbeiterbeteiligung, ZESAR 5-6/2010.; Jens Lowitzsch (et al.) Financial Participation for a New Social Europe [DE / EN / FR / IT / PL / RU] Berlin/Rome 2008/09, 144 p.; Jens Lowitzsch, Iraj Hashi,(et al.), “Employee Financial Participation (EFP) in Companies’ Proceeds” Study for the European Parliament Sept 2012.; Jens Lowitzsch, Iraj Hashi, Richard Woodward (Eds.) The PEPPER IV Report: Benchmarking of Employee Participation in Profits and Enterprise Results in the Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union, Berlin 2009, 250 p.;http://www.intercentar.de/de/forschung/schwerpunkt-mitarbeiterbeteiligung/

Property, the Welfare State and Distributional Justice

ECTS: 6/9
ZB Po, ZB Re, ZB Wi, WPM 1, WPM 2, WPM 6

The seminar examines the new (b)orders of Social Europe with regards to the functions of property and to distributive justice. Basis of the investigation is a discussion of the social conversions caused by the “Euro-Crisis” in several EU Member States. The relevance to the discussion on the welfare state, particularly in the context ofcurrent economic and financial crises and on the process of marking, overstepping, dissolution and redrawing of (property) boundaries ensues from the changes in the relationship delineating (1) owners and non-owners, (2) private and public/state ownership, as well as (3) capital and labour. In Europe, responses to the economic and financial crisis have changed these relationships (e.g., socialization losses and privatising profits during the bank bailout, additional privatisation and cuts to social services in the context of austerity programs).The current “Financial Crisis” is characterized by information asymmetry and uncertainty, leading to a classic ”agency problem” in the relation between the banks’managers, shareholders and financiers on the one side and governments and the regulatory authorities on the other. In the private sector this is typically the situation when insolvency proceedings apply to prevent abuse and further damage.We will discuss to what extend the experience of private sector insolvency proceedings and specifically the (lack of) application of well-established rules and principles during the financial crisis offer advice for dealing with the current sovereign default crisis. In most cases the real causes behind this policy are not economic, but a dangerous mix of information asymmetry, weak regulation and the pressure of lobby groups. Against this background the solution of Euro Bonds and its implication for the welfare state are examined. The vast majority of citizens in industrial societies do not own any kind of productive property. Thus they are impeded from wider participation in civil society and from access to economic opportunity, as well as from the attainment of economic security and leisure. The “society of owners” is simultaneously a “society of non-owners”. Interestingly, the catastrophe of 2008 has occasioned very little demand for radical financial, fiscal or ownership reforms. One of the core questions is, how to open upeconomic opportunity to the majority of citizens enabling them to become owners of productive assets. In the economies of the North African transition countries this is ever more true, as most of the capital assets were concentrated in the hands of the former autocratic rulers, now ousted. The question of how to dispose of these assets –today in trusteeship or under government administration –is one of the most challenging of the transformation process.

Literatur:
Jens Lowitzsch „Bankenkrise, Staateninsolvenz und systemische Risiken. Zur Neuordnung des Finanzsektors“ MES Perspektiven 1/2011 S. 31 ff. (English Version available); Jens Lowitzsch „Property, the Welfare State and Distributive Justice –New B(O)rders in the EU in the course of the „Euro-Crisis“ Project proposal;Jens Lowitzsch „The Property Question in the North African Transition Countries“ Outline of Conceptual Frame for Future Cooperation

EU Economic and Enterprise Policy – Social Europe and Employee Participation / Part IV-Law making at the EU level – Financial Participation, a Challenge for Legal Policy -Focus: the 28th regime as an alternative tool for EU legal integration -Policy options for SMEs

ZB Wi, WPM 2, WPM 6
Seminar

This course is the continuation of the Seminar in English language (Winter 2011/12) – for new participants a block seminar during the semester will givean introduction to the topic. In the European Reform Treaty of Lisbon, entered into force on 1 December 2009, the EU for the first time expressly commits itself to the European Social Model as one of the pillars of its policy. Summarizing the alterations introduced by the Reform Treaty in the field of social policy the seminar specifically addresses policy instruments and the associated decision-making processes. The example of employee participation, in this case specifically of a European concept for employee financial partici-pation (EFP), will be used to develop options for implementing similar concepts in the political sphere. Financial participation is traditionally an optional instrument for improving company performance and corporate governance; enterprises are therefore free to introduce financial participation schemes. TheCommission has reiterated this principle of voluntariness. Thus, provided that they are granted voluntarily on the national level, a supranational concept can offer a variety of incentives from which to choose. However, common EU-wide fiscal incentives remain problematic. Law making at the EU level – Financial Participation, a Challenge for Legal Policy Establishing EFP-schemes through legislation is of primary importance, as it gives companies a distinct legal entity and provides them with a clear framework for company decisions and actions. At the same time, establishing a legal framework delineates what is possible for companies without inviting sanctions from regulatory, legal or taxation authorities. The “Building block approach” to employee financial participation presented in this context takes into consideration existing national participation models and best practice with regards to both the type of participation scheme and the incentives that may be granted based on the principle of voluntaryness. As an alternative to the creation of a European Recommendation or Directive on financial participation, the application of existing national Company Law rooted in the 2nd Council Directive on Company Law is looked upon in the context of the "OpenMethod of Coordination" (OMC). Further, the amendment of existing European Company Law, i.e., the European Company Statute is considered. Focus: the 28th regime as an alternative tool for EU legal integration Given the above described difficulties in finding a solution that balances both European and national needs, the most feasible way seems to be the so-called 28th regime. Such an optional European EFP regime would be conceived as a "2nd Regime" in each Member State, thus providing parties with an option between two regimes for EFP schemes, one originating in national legislation and one – i.e., the 28th regime – in European legislation. The 28th regime would be defined at EU level and enacted by EU instruments, i.e., a EU-Regulation. At the same time containing provisions of mandatorylaw it would ensure a high level of protection for employees, similar to those granted by the EU or national mandatory rules. Last but not least, a crucial point is to limit the option of the parties to a choice of the entire instrument thus avoiding the possibility of "cherry-picking" or a “race to the bottom” with regards to quality standards. Of course, even as anoptional sectoral instrument the 28th regime requires a set of general principles of private law.

Literatur
– register for dropbox (http://www.intercentar.de/de/forschung/schwerpunkt-mitarbeiterbeteiligung/): Jens Lowitzsch, Neuausrichtung der Sozialpolitik imEuropäischen Reformvertrag Umsetzungsprobleme am Beispiel der Mitarbeiterbeteiligung, ZESAR 5-6/2010. Jens Lowitzsch (et al.) Financial Participation for a New Social Europe [DE / EN / FR / IT / PL] Berlin/Rome 2008/09, 144 p. Jens Lowitzsch, Iraj Hashi, Richard Woodward (Eds.) The PEPPER IV Report: Benchmarking of Employee Participation in Profits and Enterprise Results in the Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union, Berlin 2009, 250 p.

Insolvency, Restructuring and Sovereign Default / Part IV – The financial crisis and its implication for the welfare state -Insolvency vs. Sovereign Default - Legal and macroeconomic perspectives of the financial crisis

ZB Wi, WPM 6 Seminar

This course is the continuation of the Seminar in English language (Winter 2011/12). The seminar discusses to what extend the experience of private sector insolvency proceedings and specifically the (lack of) application of well established rules and principles during the financial crisis offer advice for dealing with the current sovereigndefault crisis. What started as a bank crisis has become a sovereign debt crisis, as it still seems to be politically difficult to insist on a fair share of the private sector in the burden. It is estimated, that as an effect of bailing out the financial sector sovereign debt has increased by about 20% across the EU and in the US. In most cases the real causes behind this policy are not economic, but a dangerous mix of information asymmetry, weak regulation and the pressure of lobby groups. At the same time the current “Financial Crisis” is characterised by information asymmetry and uncertainty, leading to a classic ”agency problem” in the relation between the banks’ managers, shareholders and financiers on the one side and governments and the regulatory authorities on the other. In the private sector this is typically the situation when insolvency proceedings apply to prevent abuse and further damage. Exit processes as a market-driven process of optimal asset re-allocation From a macroeconomic point of view, insolvency can be seen as one of many possibilities through which productive capacity can be assigned to a better and more efficient use. The characteristic of this process of resource re-allocation is the temporary withdrawal of productive capacity from the market at the early stages of this process. Consequently – beside the optimal re-allocation of the assets – the duration until the re-entrance of the resources into the market is decisive for the success of the whole process. Beside the "classic" mechanisms of insolvency law (in particular bankruptcy and reorganisation), the "non-classic" procedures covered by the general rules of civil, company and commercial law (downsiz-78ing/restructuring/asset sale) should also be mentioned. They are of great importance in transition economies, due to their flexibility, rapidity, and most importantly because unlike classic methods, which are usually conducted by the creditors, they are conducted by the debtors (owners) and therefore have a lower level of conflict potential. Focus Financial Crisis As the events of September 2008 demonstrated, the social costs of bank failure may well exceed private costs, triggering drastic government intervention in the banking system. To avert bank runs governments immediately employed deposit insuranceand unprecedented state guarantees. Although the meltdown of the banking system was thereby staved off, major bank failures still seem inevitable. Nevertheless governments have been reluctant to apply insolvency law, which legally assures creditors and potential investors that even in case of dire financial distress, there will be legal processes in place to prevent a rush on the assets of the failed firm and to reorganise it or at least to regulate the distribution of its estate. This raises the question of whether the regulators have dealt properly with the crisis and how to deal with the current sovereign debt crisis. One of the core questions is, how to open up economic opportunity to the majority of citizens enabling them to become owners of productive assets. Interestingly, the catastrophe of 2008 has occasioned very little demand for radical financial, fiscal orownership reforms. Against this background the finan-cial crisis and its implication for the welfare state are examined.

Literatur – register for dropbox (http://www.intercentar.de/de/forschung/schwerpunkt-insolvenzrecht/):  Jens Lowitzsch „Bankenkrise, Staateninsolvenz und systemische Risiken. Zur Neuordnung des Finanzsektors“ MES Perspektiven 1/2011 S. 31 ff. (English Version available) Jens Lowitzsch (Hrsg.) The Insolvency Law of Central and Eastern Europe - Twelve Country Screenings of the New Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union and Russia: a Comparative Analysis, INSOL Europe 2007, 496 S. Jens Lowitzsch (Hrsg.) Das Insolvenzrecht Mittelund Osteuropas, Berlin 2004, 334 S.

Insolvency and Restructuring in Transition Countries and in the Financial Crisis / Part III – Legal and macroeconomic perspectives of system transformation in CEE and Financial Crisis

6/9 ECTS

ZB Wi, ZB Po, ZB Re, WPM 1, WPM 6

This course is the continuation of the Seminar in English language (Summer 2011). In the transition economies of Central, Eastern andSouth Eastern Europe, a fundamental social economic change has occurred simultaneously to the process of political and constitutional modernisation: the transformation of property ownership. Here, "the revolutionary establishment of an entrepreneurial class" – as a category of agents which was alien to the socialist planned economy and which is now participating in the free competition on the basis of property ownership titles – leads to entirely new demands on the concept of system transformation. The transformation of property as a (re)introduction of private property is seen as being crucial in reaching a "point of no return" in the process of privatisation of the legal and economic organisations of former socialist states.  The position of insolvency law in the transformation of property ownership Hand in hand with the establishment of private entrepreneurship, a private law system is being introduced, in which the economy and the state exist as separate entities and the basic conditions for the participation of the new agents in the common market are created. For this to succeed, an unequivocal allocation of risks and responsibilities – especially in the field of commercial law – is absolutely necessary. The insolvency law, complementing the juridical institutions of private property and private entrepreneurship, is a core element here and in order to correctly fulfill its mission, it must, like all laws, include all subjects involved in economic exchange – both public and private.
However, the basic difference in the role of the insolvency law in the transformation of property ownership is that unlike in the developed WestEuropean economies, it is not a matter of a well-functioning economic system searching for an instrument for self-adjustment, but that this order is only currently emerging in the context of the denationalisation process. Exit processes as a market-driven process of optimal asset re-allocation From a macroeconomic point of view, insolvency can be seen as one of many possibilities through which productive capacity can be assigned to a better and more efficient use. The characteristic of this process of resource re-allocation is the temporary withdrawal of productive capacity from the market at the early stages of this process. Consequently – beside the optimal re-allocation of the assets – the duration until the re-entrance of the resources into the market is decisive for the success of the whole process. Beside the "classic" mechanisms of insolvency law (in particular bankruptcy and reorganisation), the "non-classic" procedures covered by the general rules of civil, company and commercial law (downsizing/restructuring/asset sale) should also be mentioned. They are of great importance in transition economies, due to their flexibility, rapidity, and most importantly because unlike classic methods, which are usually conducted by the creditors, they are conducted by the debtors (owners) and therefore have a lower level of conflict potential. Focus Financial Crisis As the events of September 2008 demonstrated, the social costs of bank failure may well exceed private costs, triggering drastic government intervention in the banking system. To avert bank runs governments immediately employed deposit insurance and unprecedented state guarantees. Although the meltdown of the banking system was thereby staved off, major bank failures still seem inevitable. Nevertheless governments have been reluctant to apply insolvency law, which legally as sures creditors and potential investors that even in case of dire financial distress, there will be legal processes in place to prevent a rush on the assets of the failed firm and to reorganise it or at least to regulate the distribution of its estate. This raises the question of whether the regulators have dealt properly with the crisis and how to deal with the current sovereign debt crisis.

Literatur: – register for dropbox (http://www.intercentar.de/de/forschung/schwerpunkt-insolvenzrecht/): Jens Lowitzsch (Hrsg.) The Insolvency Law of Central and Eastern Europe - Twelve Country Screenings of the New Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union and Russia: a Comparative Analysis, INSOL Europe 2007, 496 S. Jens Lowitzsch (Hrsg.) Das Insolvenzrecht Mittel- und Osteuropas, Berlin 2004, 334 S. Herwig Roggemann/Jens Lowitzsch Privatisierungsinstitutionen in Mittel- und Osteuropa - Systematische Bestandsaufnahme und vergleichende Analyse, Berlin 2002, 428 S. Jens Lowitzsch Privatisierung und Beteiligung in Mittel- und Osteuropa, Berlin 2002

Uprooting World Poverty – A job for Business? Social Europe and Employee Participation / Part III -European Legal and Social Policy after the Lisbon Reform Treaty -The financial crisis and its implication for the welfare state -Focus Financial Participation for Non-Employees
6/9 ECTS
 
ZB Wi, ZB Po, ZB Re, WPM 1, WPM 6

This course is the continuation of the Seminar Social Europe and Employee Participation (Summer 2011) – for new participants a block seminar at the beginning of the semester will give an introduction to the topic. In the European Reform Treaty of Lisbon, entered into force on 1 December 2009, the EU for the first time expressly commits itself to the European Social Model as one of the pillars of its policy. Summarizing the alterations introduced by the Reform Treaty in the field of social policy the seminar specifically addresses policy instruments and the associated decision-making processes. The example of employee participation, in this case specifically of a European concept for employee financial participation, will be used to develop options for implementing similar concepts in the political sphere. One of the core questions is, how to open up economic opportunity to the majority of citizens enabling them to become owners of productive assets. Interestingly, the catastrophe of 2008 has occasioned very little demand for radical financial, fiscal or ownership reforms. Against this background the financial crisis and its implication for the welfare state are examined. The “Building block approach” to employee financial participation presented in this context takes into consideration existing national participation models and best practice with regards to both the type of participation scheme and the incentives that may be granted based on the principle of voluntaryness. As an alternative to the creation of a European Recommendation or Directive on financial participation, the application of existing national Company Law rooted in the 2nd Council Directive on Company Law is looked upon in the context of the "Open Method of Coordination" (OMC). Further, the amendment of existing European Company Law, i.e., the European Company Statute is considered. The bottleneck is access to capital credit For the past 100 years the traditional way to asset formation for the poor was savings through forgone consumption. That obviously did not work – for what can you save when you have barely enough to make ends meet? If we agree that – when financing business activities, i.e., productive property – the bottleneck is access to capital credit why do we give micro-credit to the poor while macro-credit is only available to the rich? We are flooded with consumer credit at 0% interest, but try to get, let’s say 10,000 Euro, to set up a business instead of financing your new car ... That’s when the trouble begins. It’s a paradox: Financial markets, an ocean of liquidity, eagerly search for profitable investments, yet the income of consumers needed to generate the necessary consumption declines as automation increases. To put it simply, machines don’t buy cars! In the end capital sits on offshore bank accounts generating interest but is cut off the economy and, being ever more concentrated, becomes sterile. So, how many yachts can you possess? How many kilos of caviar can you eat? The eye of the needle thus is financing productive property ownership for the many. This is what the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), invented more than 50 years ago by Louis O. Kelso does. The ESOP uses the borrowing power of the company to acquire shares of that very company for its employees. The cost of credit financing is covered from the future earnings of the shares. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, General Stock Ownership Plan, Consumer Stock Ownership Plan An ESOP usually involves a loan to an employee benefit trust, which acquires company stock and allocates it through periodic contributions to each employee's ESOP account. The loan may be serviced by payments from the company out of company profits, out of dividends paid on the stock held by the ESOP or (in rare instances) from employee salary reductions. But in the future also less common financial tools as the General Stock Ownership Plan (GSOP) or the Consumer Stock Ownership Plan (CSOP) must be taken into consideration. The difference to the ESOP is the smallest common denominator of the plan participants: Employees = ESOP, Consumers of a Utility = CSOP, Citizens of a region = GSOP. In the case of the latter two plans, instead of the value of the company, it is usually government programs that back the capital acquisition loan. All plans are based on the same financial logic, i.e., to finance the acquisition of productive property out of the future earnings of the object of acquisition. Instead of using savings, the cost of financing the investment is covered from the proceeds of that very investment. In other words it is auto-financing. As to the feasibility of the concept, Wall Street employs these techniques, its prototype being the leveraged buy-out, successfully for many decades now – but of course mostly for the already wealthy.
Literatur– register for dropbox (http://www.intercentar.de/de/forschung/schwerpunkt-mitarbeiterbeteiligung/): Jens Lowitzsch (et al.) Financial Participation for a New Social Europe [DE / EN / FR / IT / Polish in preparation] Berlin/Rome 2008/09, 144 p. Jens Lowitzsch, Iraj Hashi, Richard Woodward (Eds.) The PEPPER IV Report: Benchmarking of Employee Participation in Profits and Enterprise Results in the Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union, Berlin 2009, 250 p
.

Social Europe and Employee Participation / Part II
6/9 ECTS

Students will be given the chance to actively participate in the ―Week of Financial Particiaption‖ taking place in Brussels at the EESC on 17 18 19 October 2011. In the European Reform Treaty of Lisbon, entered into force on 1 December 2009, the EU for the first time expressly commits itself to the European Social Model as one of the pillars of its policy. Summarizing the alterations introduced by the Reform Treaty in the field of social policy the seminar specifically addresses policy instruments and the associated decision-making processes. The example of employee participation, in this case specifically of a European concept for employee financial participation, will beused to develop options for implementing similar concepts in the political sphere. One of the core questions is, how to open up economic opportunity to the majority of citizens enabling them to become owners of productive assets. Interestingly, the catastrophe of 2008 has occasioned very little demand for radical financial, fiscal or ownership reforms. Against this background the financial crisis and its implication for the welfare state are examined. The
―building block approach‖ to employee financial participation presented in this context takes into consideration existing national participation models and ―best practice‖ with regards to both the type of participation scheme and the incentives that may be granted based on the principle of voluntaryness. As an alternative to the creation of a European Recommendation or Directive on financial participation, the application of existing national Company Law rooted in the 2nd Council Directive on Company Law is looked upon in the context of the "Open Method of Coordination" (OMC). Further, the amendment of existing European Company Law, i.e., the European Company Statute is considered.
Literatur: (http://www.intercentar.de/de/forschung/schwerpunktmitarbeiterbeteiligung/):-Jens Lowitzsch (et al.) Financial Participation for a New Social Europe [DE / EN / FR / IT / Polish inpreparation] Berlin/Rome 2008/09, 144 p.
-Jens Lowitzsch, Iraj Hashi, Richard Woodward (Eds.) The PEPPER IV Report: Benchmarking of Employee Participation in Profits and Enterprise Results in the Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union, Berlin 2009, 250 p.

Privatisierung, Insolvenz und Restrukturierung in Transformationsstaaten / Teil II –Makroökonomische und juristische Perspektiven von System-transformation in MOE und Finanzkrise
6/9 ECTS

ZB Wi, ZB Po, ZB Re, WPM1, WPM 6
Das Seminar ist eine Fortsetzung der gleichnamigen Veranstaltung aus dem Wintersemester  2010/11. In den Transformationsländern Ost-Ostmittel-und Südosteuropas fand neben dem System-als Regimewechsel gleichzeitig ein grundlegender sozial ökonomischer Umbruch statt: die Eigentumstransformation. Dabei stellt die ―revolutionäre Installierung einer Unternehmerklasse‖, alseiner der sozialistischen Planwirtschaft fremden Kategorie von Akteuren, die aufgrund von Eigentumstiteln am nunmehr freien Wettbewerb teilnimmt, völlig neue Anforderungen an die Konzeption des Systemwechsels. Hand in Hand mit der Etablierung von Unternehmertum geht die Errichtung einer Privatrechtsordnung, in der Wirtschaft und Staat als getrennte Systeme existieren, und die die Rahmenbedingungen für die Teilnahme der neuen Akteure am gemeinsamen Marktschafft. Dazu ist eine eindeutige Risiko und Haftungszuweisung insbesondere auf dem Gebiet des Wirtschaftsrechts unabdingbar. Ein Kernelement stellt in diesem Zusammenhang das Insolvenzrecht dar, welches alle am Wirtschaftsverkehr beteiligten Subjekte -staatliche wie private gleichermaßen -erfassen muß, um seiner Aufgabe gerecht zu werden Aus makroökonomischer Perspektive kann die Insolvenz als eine von mehreren Möglichkeiten gesehen werden, wie Vermögensgegenstände, insbesondere Produktivvermögen, infolge suboptimaler bis schlechter Nutzung einer besseren zugeführt werden. Charakteristisch für diesen Prozess der Ressourcen-(Re)Allokation ist zunächst der temporäre Marktaustritt des Produktionsvermögens; entscheidend für den Erfolg oder Mißerfolg ist daher neben einer möglichstoptimalen Zuordnung der Zeitraum bis zum erneuten Markteintritt. Neben den als ―klassischen‖ Mechanismen des Insolvenzrechts auf Grundlage eigens dazu vorgesehener rechtlicher Verfahren bekannten (Konkurs Vergleich Reorganisation) sind ―nicht klassische‖ Verfahren zu nennen, die den allgemeinen Regeln des Zivil-, Gesellschafts-und Handelsrechts folgen (Downsizing / Restrukturierung / Asset-Sale). Focus Finanzkrise: Die Ereignisse des Septembers 2008 haben gezeigt, dass gesellschaftliche Kosten eines Bankzusammenbruchs private Verluste übersteigen und massive staatliche Interventionen ins Bankensystem auf den Plan rufen können. Zur Vermeidung von Panik und ungesteuertem Abzug von Spareinlagen, so genannten Bank-Runs, gaben etliche Regierungen umgehend Einlagensicherungen und staatlichen Garantien in nie dagewesener Höhe. Auch wenn dadurch zunächst eine Kernschmelze des Bankensystems verhindert wurde, scheinen weitere Bankenzusammenbrüche unabwendbar. Dennoch sind viele europäische Regierungen noch immer nicht bereit, sich mit der Tatsache abzufinden, dass nicht alle Banken überleben können. Es stellt sich die Frage, wie sinnvoll der bisherige Umgang mit der Krise war und wie man den zu erwartenden Unternehmensinsolvenzen im Finanzsektor begegnen sollte.
Literatur: (http://www.intercentar.de/de/forschung/schwerpunkt-insolvenzrecht/): · Jens Lowitzsch (Hrsg.) The Insolvency Law of Central and Eastern Europe  -Twelve Country Screenings of the New Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union and Russia: a Comparative Analysis, INSOL Europe 2007, 496 S.· Jens Lowitzsch (Hrsg.) Das Insolvenzrecht Mittel-und Osteuropas, Berlin 2004, 334 S.· Herwig Roggemann/Jens Lowitzsch Privatisierungsinstitutionen in Mittel-und Osteuropa -Systematische Bestandsaufnahme und vergleichende Analyse, Berlin 2002, 428 S.· Jens Lowitzsch Privatisierung und eteiligung in Mittel-und Osteuropa, Berlin 2002

Social Europe and Employee Participation –  European Legal and Social Policy after the Lisbon Reform Treaty – Focus Employee Financial Participation

In the European Reform Treaty signed on 13 December 2007 in Lisbon, and – after ratification by all EU member states – entered into force on 1 December 2009, the EU for the first time expressly commits itself to the European Social Model as one of the pillars of its policy. The seminar will present the alterations made to the EU Reform Treaty in social policy and specifically addresses its instruments and the associated decision-making processes. The example of employee participation, in this case specifically of a European concept for employee financial participation, will be used to develop options for implementing similar concepts in the political sphere. The “building block approach” to employee financial participation presented in this context takes into consideration existing national participation models and “best practice” with regards to both the type of participation scheme and the incentives that may be granted based on the principle of voluntaryness. As an alternative to the creation of a European Recommendation or Directive on financial participation, the application of existing national Company Law rooted in the second Council Directive on Company Law is looked upon. In this context, the codified method of "Open Method of Coordination" (OMC) appears to be the most suitable approach to developing a uniform concept that builds upon existing national legal provisions and can be implemented in all the Member States. Further, the amendment of existing European Company Law, i.e., the European Company Statute is considered.
Literatur: Jens Lowitzsch (et al.): Financial Participation for a New Social Europe [DE / EN / FR / IT / Polish in preparation] Berlin/
Rome 2008/09, 144 p. Jens Lowitzsch, Iraj Hashi, Richard Woodward (Eds.): The PEPPER IV Report: Benchmarking of Employee Participation in Profits and Enterprise Results in the Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union Berlin 2009, 250 p.

Privatisierung, Insolvenz und Restrukturierung in Transformationsstaaten – Makroökonomische und juristische Perspektiven der Systemtransformation in MOE

ZB Wi, ZB Po, ZB Re, WPM 1, WPM 6
In den Transformationsländern Ost-, Ostmittel- und Südosteuropas fand neben dem System- als Regimewechsel gleichzeitig ein grundlegender sozial ökonomischer Umbruch statt: die Eigentumstransformation. Dabei stellt die “revolutionäre Installierung einer Unternehmerklasse”, als einer der sozialistischen Planwirtschaft fremden Kategorie von Akteuren, die aufgrund von Eigentumstiteln am nunmehr freien Wettbewerb teilnimmt, völlig neue Anforderungen an die Konzeption des Systemwechsels. Die Eigentumstransformation als (Wieder) Einführung des privaten Eigentums wird aus diesem Grund als entscheidender Punkt im Sinne eines "point of no return" im Prozeß der Privatisierung vormals staatssozialistischer Recht- und Wirtschaftsordnungen angesehen. Hand in Hand mit der Etablierung von Unternehmertum geht die Errichtung einer Privatrechtsordnung, in der Wirtschaft und Staat als getrennte Systeme existieren, und die die Rahmenbedingungen für die Teilnahme der neuen Akteure am gemeinsamen Markt schafft. Dazu ist eine eindeutige Risiko- und Haftungszuweisung insbesondere auf dem Gebiet des Wirtschaftsrechts unabdingbar. Ein Kernelement stellt in diesem Zusammenhang das Insolvenzrecht dar, welches alle am Wirtschaftsverkehr beteiligten Subjekte - staatliche wie private gleichermaßen - erfassen muß, um seiner Aufgabe gerecht zu werden. Der grundlegende Unterschied der Stellung des Insolvenzrechts in der Eigentumstransformation im Vergleich zu der in westeuropäischen Ökonomien liegt nun aber darin, daß hier nicht eine funktionierende Wirtschaftsordnung ein Instrument zur Selbstregulierung sucht, sondern diese Ordnung erst in ihrer Entstehung und Entstaatlichung begriffen ist. Aus makroökonomischer Perspektive kann die Insolvenz als eine von mehreren Möglichkeiten gesehen werden, wie Vermögensgegenstände, insbesondere Produktivvermögen, infolge suboptimaler bis schlechter Nutzung einer besseren
zugeführt werden. Charakteristisch für diesen Prozess der Ressourcen- (Re)Allokation ist zunächst der temporäre Marktaustritt des Produktionsvermögens; entscheidend für den Erfolg oder Mißerfolg ist daher neben einer möglichst optimalen
Zuordnung der Zeitraum bis zum erneuten Markteintritt. Neben den als “klassischen” Mechanismen des Insolvenzrechts auf Grundlage eigens dazu vorgesehener rechtlicher Verfahren bekannten (Konkurs / Vergleich / Reorganisation) sind “nicht
klassische” Verfahren zu nennen, die den allgemeinen Regeln des Zivil-,Gesellschafts- und Handelsrechts folgen (Downsizing / Restrukturierung / AssetSale).Ihnen kommen gerade in den Transformationsökonomien aufgrund ihrer Flexibilität und Schnelligkeit und vor allem aufgrund des Umstandes, daß sie - im Gegensatz zu ersteren, die regelmäßig gläubigergesteuert sind - vom Schuldner gesteuert werden und damit weniger Konfliktpotential haben große Bedeutung.
Literatur: Jens Lowitzsch (Hrsg.): The Insolvency Law of Central and Eastern Europe Twelve Country Screenings of the New Member and Candidate Countries of the European Union and Russia: a Comparative Analysis INSOL Europe 2007, 496 S.
Jens Lowitzsch (Hrsg.): Das Insolvenzrecht Mittel- und Osteuropas Berlin 2004, 334 S. Herwig Roggemann/Jens Lowitzsch: Privatisierungsinstitutionen in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Systematische Bestandsaufnahme und vergleichende Analyse Berlin
2002, 428 S. Jens Lowitzsch: Privatisierung und Beteiligung in Mittel- und Osteuropa Berlin 2002.