Organization for European Economic Cooperation

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 566-568

The Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, composed of cabinet members of the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Greece, Norway, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands, held a series of secret meetings during May and June in an attempt to solve the problem of intra-European trade and the intra-European payments system which was scheduled to end June 30, 1949. The principal objections to the existing payments system were that it was originally formed in a series of bilateral agreements between each of the countries, that the original agreements were based on estimates of the expected balance of payments which had in some cases been erroneous, and that existing quotas had stifled trade.

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 520-528

Council of OEECOn April 4, 1950, the Council of OEEC held its annual election. Dr. Dirk U. Stikker, Foreign Minister of the Netherlands and political conciliator of OEEC, was elected chairman of the Council, thus combining the functions of those two OEEC offices. Representatives of Austria and Switzerland were elected as vicechairmen of the Council, while new members of the executive committee of OEEC were Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom retained the presidency of this committee and France the vice-presidency and Turkey replaced Switzerland as rapporteur géndral. The Council also decided to do away with the consultative group of eleven which had proved to be unwieldy and to eliminate the practice by which the chairman and vice-chairmen had been expected to spend two days of every week in Paris. It was decided that: 1) the full Council should meet at the ministerial level on the first Friday of every second month; 2) whenever circumstances demanded, the executive committee could be convened at the ministerial level, with the participation of the chairman of the Council and possibly at his call; 3) the chairman was empowered to ask the vice-chairmen to meet with him in Paris at any time to review progress or to discuss action. In response to a request from the Council of Europe, the Council of OEEC appointed a subcommittee of three members to meet with a similar subcommittee from the Council of Europe to discuss closer cooperation. Sweden and Italy were named to the OEEC subcommittee with a third member to be announced later.


1956 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 658-659

Council The Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), meeting in Paris on June 29, 1956, decided to maintain the European Payments Union (EPU) for another year beginning on July 1, 1956, without any modifications in its rules. The Council also approved bilateral agreements on repayment and liquidation concluded by some EPU members. The Council met again in Paris from July 17 to 19, under the chairmanship of Mr. Harold Macmillan (United Kingdom); among the major questions discussed were nuclear energy and trade liberalization. Prior to the meeting, press reports indicated that the United Kingdom had refused an invitation from the west German government to discuss a flexible exchange rate for sterling, stating that the United Kingdom government saw no useful purpose to be served in an international discussion of the exchange value of sterling. During the Council session the ministers had before them a report and proposal dealing with 1) the need for the OEEC countries to achieve a degree of free trade abolishing quantitative restrictions to the extent of 90 percent or more; 2) the possibility of consolidating that degree of liberalization; and 3) the desire of the low tariff countries in Europe to see this quantitative liberalization accompanied by tariff reductions.


1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 420-426 ◽  

The Governments of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey and the Commanders in Chief of the French, United Kingdom and United States Zones of Occupation of Germany


1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-160

On June 5, 1947, the Secretary of State of the United States, George C. Marshall, stated that the United States could not proceed much further with its plans to assist European recovery unless the countries themselves reached some agreement as to their requirements and to their own contribution to European recovery. Immediately following this speech at Harvard University, representatives of the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union met in Paris to discuss the possibility of a joint conference on the problem. After the Soviet representative (Molotov) withdrew, sixteen nations, upon the invitation of France and the United Kingdom, met in Paris from July 12 to September 22, 1947, to draw up a joint program for European reconstruction. Participating countries were: United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.


1955 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 304-305

Council: The Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) met on May 5 and 6, 1954, and agreed on the basis of a compromise settlement of the extreme creditor and debtor problem in the European Payments Union (EPU). The settlement provided that 1) accumulated debts should be paid over a period of time; 2) debtors should in the future limit to a minimum their resort to EPU resources; 3) the rules of payment should remain unaltered; 4) if the German Federal Republic or other creditors increased their surpluses in EPU, they should extend further credit, but receive some compensation from the EPU dollar reserve; and 5) the special position of Germany should be dealt with. According to press reports, the settlement had averted the danger that the United Kingdom and Germany would withdraw from EPU. The Council, which also decided that EPU should be renewed for another year after June 30, 1954, referred the matter of further details of the settlement to the managing board of EPU. Other actions taken by the Council during its May meeting included the following: 1) recommendations to France that it abolish the compensatory taxes on imports which it had introduced along with certain measures of trade liberalization, and increase trade liberalization to 75 percent by November 1, 1954, instead of to the 65 percent which it had promised; 2) recommendations to the steering board that it submit, as soon as possible, “concrete proposals” for the abolition of artificial measures designed to aid exporters; and 3) the establishment of a ministerial group to examine the problems which would arise if a “number of countries” re-established convertibility.


1956 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 659-659

Settlements in EPU for the period May through July 1956 showed the German Federal Republic retaining the strongest creditor position. Austria, which showed a small surplus in June, had a larger one in July, while Italy moved from a substantial deficit in June to a surplus in July. France continued to have the largest monthly deficit; second was the United Kingdom, which showed a surplus in May, a deficit in June and a significantly larger deficit in July. Since December 1955, France had covered its deficits fully in gold payments, but in July 1956 it resorted to the 25 percent EPU credit to which it was entitled. Belgium and Luxembourg retained strong creditor positions.


1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 697-700

On August 3 the Council of OEEC approved the report of the working party which studied the financial condition of eighteen European areas (Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Western German Federal Republic, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Trieste, Turkey and the United Kingdom) from March 3 to June 20. On the working party were experts from Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom. The report found that some degree of confidence and internal financial stability had been restored in Austria and Greece, that price stability had been maintained through budget surplus and direct controls in Norway and the United Kingdom and that in consequence inflation was receding, and inflationary pressure had been largely reduced in the Netherlands and Denmark, where direct controls had been in effect. In both of these last named countries there had been some increase in unemployment in 1949 and a tendency toward an increase in private savings was noted. In the Netherlands the balance of payments deficit had been reduced, but Denmark's terms of trade had steadily become less favorable. Both Sweden and Switzerland attained a surplus in the balance of payments in 1949; Sweden reduced the amount of direct controls, while Switzerland had a moderate decline in prices and unemployment was low in both countries. In Belgium, Germany and Italy prices had tended to fall and unemployment had remained high. The working party advised in its report that the effects of devaluation on the internal situation of the participating countries had been slight in relation to the amount of devaluation. However, the trend of downward prices was reversed in many countries after devaluation and the subsequent increase in prices had brought pressure for increased wages. The report recommended that countries in thispredicament prevent this pressure from starting a renewed inflation. The report noted that with the tapering off of United States aid which had allowed an overall import surplus the countries were faced with a dollar shortage and that unless they borrowed from abroad, a reduction on over-all balance of payments deficits would be necessary. The report recognized that in such an instance there would be an internal problem of preventing domestic consumption and investment from increasing as fast as production, and that it would be necessary for such countries to economize on their imports from dollar sources.


Author(s):  
Di Long ◽  
Suzanne Polinder ◽  
Gouke J. Bonsel ◽  
Juanita A. Haagsma

Abstract Purpose To assess the test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L and the reworded Quality of Life After Traumatic Brain Injury Overall Scale (QOLIBRI-OS) for the general population of Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (UK). Methods The sample contains 1864 members of the general population (aged 18–75 years) of Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK who completed a web-based questionnaire at two consecutive time points. The survey included items on gender, age, level of education, occupational status, household annual income, chronic health status, and the EQ-5D-5L and reworded QOLIBRI-OS instrument. Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, EQ-5D-5L summary index, EQ VAS, reworded QOLIBRI-OS dimensions and reworded QOLIBRI-OS level sum score was examined by Gwet’s Agreement Coefficient (Gwet’s AC) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Results Gwet’s AC ranged from 0.64 to 0.97 for EQ-5D-5L dimensions. The ICC ranged from 0.73 to 0.84 for the EQ-5D-5L summary index and 0.61 to 0.68 for EQ VAS in the three countries. Gwet’s AC ranged from 0.35 to 0.55 for reworded QOLIBRI-OS dimensions in the three countries. The ICC ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 for reworded QOLIBRI-OS level sum score. Conclusion Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L administered via a web-based questionnaire was substantial to almost perfect for the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, good for EQ-5D-5L summary index, and moderate for the EQ VAS. However, test–retest reliability was less satisfactory for the reworded QOLIBRI-OS. This indicates that the web-based EQ-5D-5L is a reliable instrument for the general population, but further research of the reworded QOLIBRI-OS is required.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document