scholarly journals The role of national intellectual capital in the digital transformation of EU countries. Another digital divide?

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jadranka Švarc ◽  
Jasminka Lažnjak ◽  
Marina Dabić
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Digital Divide ◽  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Intellectual Capital ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

PurposeThis study, an exploratory one, aims to empirically investigate the association of national intellectual capital (NIC) with the national digital transformation readiness of the European Union's (EU’s) member states. Apart from building the conceptual model of NIC, this study explores the role of NIC dimensions in the digital divide between European countries.Design/methodology/approachBased on the literature review and the available EU statistical data and indexes, the theoretical framework and conceptual model for NIC were developed. The model explores the relation of NIC and its dimensions (human, social, structural, relational and renewable/development capital) on the readiness of European countries for digital transformation and the digital divide. Significant differences between EU countries in NIC and digital readiness were tested. Multiple linear regression was used to explore the association of each NIC dimension with digital transformation and digital divide within the EU.FindingsDespite a positive association between all dimensions of NIC and digital transformation readiness, the proposed model of NIC was not confirmed in full. Regression analysis proved social capital and working skills, a dimension of human capital, to be the predictors of digital transformation at a national level, able to detect certain elements of digital divide between EU member states. Structural capital, knowledge and education, as dimensions of human capital, were predictors of the digital divide in terms of the integration of digital media in companies.Research limitations/implicationsThis research has a limited propensity for generalisation due to the lack of common measurement models in the field of NIC exploration.Practical implicationsThis research offers policy makers an indication of the relationships between NIC and digital transformation, pointing out which dimensions of NIC should be strengthened to allow the EU to meet the challenges of digital economy and to overcome the digital divide between EU member states.Social implicationsThe use of digital technologies is key in creating active and informed citizens in the public sphere and productive companies and economic growth in the business sphere.Originality/valueThis study provides an original theoretical framework and conceptual model through which to analyse the relationship between NIC and digital transformation, which has thus far not been explored at the level of the EU. This research makes an original contribution to the empirical exploration of NIC and produces new insights in the fields of digital transformation and intellectual capital.

EU member states’ ability to attract intellectual capital in times of crisis

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 410-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Pelle ◽  
Marcell Zoltán Végh
Keyword(s):  
Economic Crisis ◽  
Intellectual Capital ◽  
Policy Design ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Individual Development ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Eu

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to assess how the recent financial and economic crisis has affected European Union (EU) member states’ ability to attract intellectual capital. The issue was found to be relevant, as one of the key elements of competitiveness today is the ability to attract intellectual capital and the question how the recent financial and economic crisis has changed this ability of EU member states can be asked. The question is relevant in relation to the diversity of effects that the crisis had on EU member states, including, the different levels of real economy adjustment constraints. Design/methodology/approach – The concept of competitiveness applied by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in constructing the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) was used. Based on selected WEF GCI sub-indicators and the WEF’s methodology, we a new index named “Ability to attract intellectual capital” was generated. EU member states’ performance was compared along this indicator for the 2007-2008 (pre-crisis) and the 2013-2014 (post-crisis) periods. In this way, EU member states can be ranked before and after the crisis; their performance can be compared in the two periods, relatively to each other, and in relation to their performance along other relevant indices. Findings – The findings show interesting results. First, many peripheral EU member states, deeply affected by the crisis, could considerably improve their relative positions between 2007 and 2013. Second, the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) countries show a rather mixed picture, drawing up rather different individual development paths. Third, the advancements in some countries do not imply that overall convergence is proceeding in the EU. Nevertheless, some countries have not wasted the “good” crisis to take those steps of structural reform. Research limitations/implications – Because we only look at two time periods (pre-and post-crisis), the authors are not able to describe the processes that were going on in the EU member states during the years of the crisis; the results can only show the difference between the two periods. Furthermore, there may be other methodological approaches to countries’ abilities to attract intellectual capital that may bring results different from this study’s results. For the countries who, according to our investigations, could improve these abilities, enhanced competitiveness is likely to occur in a few years’ time. Practical implications – For those countries aiming at improving their abilities to attract intellectual capital, or for EU policy design, this research may provide useful results. Moreover, not only this study’s results but also the methodology can be used by others, for other purposes: to compare different years, different sets of countries included in the WEF GCI or even along different dimensions. Social implications – This study’s research findings, the authors believe, will help EU member states and the EU as a whole in getting to know their abilities to attract intellectual capital better. In the introductory part of this paper, the aim was also to collect arguments from the economic theory to explain why such abilities are crucial for future competitiveness of countries. Originality/value – The methodology that was used is the adoption of WEF methodology, and the data are from the WEF GCI dataset. However, to the authors’s knowledge, no other research work has applied this methodology on this set of WEF GCI sub-indicators, with such purposes as to compare EU member states’ abilities to attract intellectual capital before and after the crisis.

Lifting COVID-19 measures may hit resilient eastern EU

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
Economic Recovery ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Controversy ◽  
Strong Start ◽  
The Eu

Significance Available second-quarter data indicate a shallower recession in most of the eleven eastern EU member states (EU-11) than the rest of the EU in January-June. This may be due to a strong start in January-February, followed by strict but shorter lockdowns and macroeconomic measures introduced to smooth the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact. However, the number of cases is still a concern. Impacts Projections for economic recovery in the second part of the year will be subject to downside risks. European solidarity will likely continue to be tested by political controversy over the rule of law. A European-wide vision for green, digital transformation and resilience may emerge.

scholarly journals Inequalities in the European Union—A Partial Order Analysis of the Main Indicators

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 6278
Author(s):  
Lars Carlsen ◽  
Rainer Bruggemann
Keyword(s):  
Indicator System ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Educational Aspect ◽  
The Eu

The inequality within the 27 European member states has been studied. Six indicators proclaimed by Eurostat to be the main indicators charactere the countries: (i) the relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap, (ii) the income distribution, (iii) the income share of the bottom 40% of the population, (iv) the purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita, (v) the adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita and (vi) the asylum applications by state of procedure. The resulting multi-indicator system was analyzed applying partial ordering methodology, i.e., including all indicators simultaneously without any pretreatment. The degree of inequality was studied for the years 2010, 2015 and 2019. The EU member states were partially ordered and ranked. For all three years Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, and Finland are found to be highly ranked, i.e., having rather low inequality. Bulgaria and Romania are, on the other hand, for all three years ranked low, with the highest degree of inequality. Excluding the asylum indicator, the risk-poverty-gap and the adjusted gross disposable income were found as the most important indicators. If, however, the asylum application is included, this indicator turns out as the most important for the mutual ranking of the countries. A set of additional indicators was studied disclosing the educational aspect as of major importance to achieve equality. Special partial ordering tools were applied to study the role of the single indicators, e.g., in relation to elucidate the incomparability of some countries to all other countries within the union.

Practice of the member states of the European Union in the field of anti-corruption regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmytro S. Melnyk ◽  
Oleg A. Parfylo ◽  
Oleksii V. Butenko ◽  
Olena V. Tykhonova ◽  
Volodymyr O. Zarosylo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Content Analysis Method ◽  
The Eu

Purpose The experience of most European Union (EU) Member States has demonstrated effective anti-corruption practices, making the EU one of the leaders in this field, which can be used as an example to learn from in the field of anti-corruption. The purpose of this study is to analyze and identify the main features of anti-corruption legislation and strategies to prevent corruption at the national and supranational levels of the EU. Design/methodology/approach The following methods were used in the work: discourse and content analysis, method of system analysis, method of induction and deduction, historical-legal method, formal-legal method, comparative-legal method and others. Using the historical and legal method, the evolution of the formation of anti-corruption regulation at the supranational level was revealed. The comparative law method helped to compare the practices of the Member States of the EU in the field of anti-corruption regulation. The formal-legal method is used for generalization, classification and systematization of research results, as well as for the correct presentation of these results. Findings The main results, prospects for further research and the value of the material. The paper offers a critical review of key EU legal instruments on corruption, from the first initiatives taken in the mid-1990s to recent years. Originality/value In addition, the article analyzes the relevant anti-corruption legislation in the EU member states that are in the top 10 countries with the lowest level of corruption, namely: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg.

The integrated assessment of RES cooperation between the EU and its neighbours

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Welisch ◽  
Gustav Resch ◽  
André Ortner
Keyword(s):  
Renewable Energy ◽  
North Africa ◽  
Renewable Energy Sources ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Good Resource ◽  
The Eu

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to provide estimation results for feasibility of renewable energy source (RES) deployment in Turkey, the Western Balkans and North Africa. From these results, the potential for cooperation in renewables production between the countries and the European Union (EU) is assessed and evaluated, in a mid- (2030) and long-term (up to 2040) perspective. Design/methodology/approach The authors focus on the quantitative assessments undertaken on the extent to which RES cooperation can create mutual benefits, identifying costs and benefits for both sides, but in particular with respect to RES target achievement (2020 and 2030) at EU level. The potentials for RES generation in Turkey, North Africa and the Western Balkans are calculated under different policy pathways, taking into account different levels of economic and non-economic barriers that could occur. Findings Overall, the authors found that increasing RES deployment in the three analysed regions and initiating or intensifying cooperation with EU28 Member States leads to mutual benefits. Concretely, these benefits become apparent in terms of the EU Member States importing renewable energy sources for electricity with a good resource quality and adding on to their targets for RES deployment. At the same time, substantial savings occur for the EU, in turn leading to income and investments in the cooperating regions. Originality/value The assessment underlying this paper is the first of its kind to the authors’ knowledge that opens up the geographical spread in comparison to merely assessing cooperation between Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. Furthermore, the multitude of policy parameters analysed provides detailed and robust insights concerning a broad variety of different possible scenarios.

European Union Rights and Values in Human Health

2019 ◽  
pp. 16-51
Author(s):  
Anniek de Ruijter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This book looks at the impact of the expanding power of the EU in terms of fundamental rights and values. The current chapter lays down the framework for this analysis. Law did not always have a central role to play in the context of medicine and health. The role of law grew after the Second Word War and the Nuremberg Doctors Trials (1947), in which preventing the repetition of atrocities that were committed in the name of medicine became a guidepost for future law regarding patients’ rights and bioethics. In the period after the War, across the EU Member States, health law developed as a legal discipline in which a balance was struck in medicine and public health between law, bioethics, and fundamental rights. The role of EU fundamental rights protections in the context of public health and health care developed in relation with the growth of multilevel governance and litigation (national, international, Council of Europe, and European Union). For the analysis here, this chapter develops an EU rights and values framework that goes beyond the strictly legal and allows for a ‘normative language’ that takes into consideration fundamental rights as an expression of important shared values in the context of the European Union. The perspective of EU fundamental rights and values can demonstrate possible tensions caused by EU health policy: implications in terms of fundamental rights can show how highly sensitive national policy issues may be affected by the Member States’ participation in EU policymaking activities.

Labour Immigration Policy in the European Union: How to Overcome the Tension between Further Europeanisation and the Protection of National Interests?

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-223
Author(s):  
Jean-Baptiste Farcy
Keyword(s):  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Added Value ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Labour Immigration ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article critically assesses EU harmonisation in the field of labour immigration. It argues that EU directives are limited both in scope and intensity which explains their relatively low effectiveness and added value. Given the current political and institutional context, the article claims that a truly common labour immigration policy is unrealistic. Labour immigration remains a predominantly national prerogative and EU rules have done little to overcome normative competition between EU Member States. Looking forward, the EU should adopt complementary measures to Member States’ policies. The role of the EU in this sensitive policy area should be better defined and justified, in particular in relation to the principle of subsidiarity.

European transport industry deregulation

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (9) ◽  
pp. 1095-1115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis Koliousis ◽  
Dongmei Cao ◽  
Panagiotis Koliousis
Keyword(s):  
Transport Sector ◽  
Operating Efficiency ◽  
Empirical Examination ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Managerial Efficiency ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Transport Industry ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Purpose This paper aims to examine the impact of deregulation on the European transport industry in the form of privatization, on the managerial efficiency of a panel of deregulated transport companies. Design/methodology/approach This research examines a data set of 25 deregulated transport companies from a sample of 12 EU nations from 1988 to 2015. Some studies have analyzed deregulation by using non-parametric models. However, only a limited number of studies focus on the impact of deregulation on the managerial efficiency. This study answers two questions: whether deregulation, in the form of privatization, in the transport sector has any effect on the managerial efficiency, on the profitability and on the investment decisions of the firm, and whether this premise is robust enough across the European transport industry. This study formulates a multivariate regression framework utilizing data from major privatized European transport companies. The final panel includes 25 companies, from 12 EU - Member States for the period 1988-2015, equaling 375 firm-year observations based on a rigorous selection methodology. Findings The study confirms that transport companies, post-privatization, are more efficient regarding operating efficiency and profitability. The authors find no evidence that deregulation improves investment efficiency. Social implications The study addresses the regulators’ dilemma, whether to deregulate, by focusing on analyzing the improvement of the managerial efficiency. Originality/value This study contributes to the transport industry management literature in three ways. First, the authors update the literature of the economic theory of regulation with an empirical examination which covers the latest years across the EU Member States. Second, the authors introduce a comparison of the effects of deregulation on different components of the managerial efficiency, namely, investment, profitability and operating efficiency of the incumbents in the EU transport industry. Third, they examine deregulation by using two approaches: a traditional one where deregulation is a dummy variable assessing the overall effect on incumbents’ efficiency performance; and a novel approach where the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s deregulation index is used to measure the regulation intensity, accounting also for industry-wide impact assessment. This two-sided approach increases the robustness of the results.

scholarly journals Analysing the Power of the European Union’s Diplomatic Service: Do the eu Member States Control the European External Action Service?

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hrant Kostanyan
Keyword(s):  
External Action ◽  
Principal Agent ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Agent Model ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Principal Agent Model ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

By applying the rational choice principal–agent model, this article examines the European Union member states’ principal control of the European External Action Service (eeas) agent. More specifically, the article applies mechanisms of agency monitoring, control and sanctions that are inherent in the principal–agent model to analyse the establishment and functioning of the eeas. These mechanisms aim to ensure the eeas’s compliance with its mandate, thereby curtailing its ability to pursue own objectives that are independent from the principal. The findings reveal that the eeas is tightly controlled by the eu member states. Moreover the European Commission has tools to exercise horizontal checks vis-à-vis the eeas. The application of the principal–agent model to control the eeas is not without its limits. The model falls short of conceptualizing the role of the European Parliament, which remains an outlier to this model.

Eastern EU views on migrants will not change soon

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Free Flow ◽  
Refugee Crisis ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Immigrants And Refugees ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Integration ◽  
The Eu

Significance A rift has opened between the eleven former communist EU member states (EU-11), and such older members as Germany and Sweden, over attitudes towards immigrants and refugees, who are making for the EU in ever-greater numbers. The rift, which is based on different histories, levels of multi-culturalism, experiences in integrating minorities and histories of emigration rather than immigration, is driving policy in different directions within the EU. Impacts Several of the EU-11 bloc will continue to oppose mandatory quotas for accepting refugees. The issue may have long-lasting effects on further EU integration, and Euro-scepticism will rise in the EU-11. The refugee crisis may result in further, long-lasting limitations to the free flow of people within the Schengen zone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document