scholarly journals The economics the correlation issues in EU-28

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 77-82
Author(s):  
Yaser Mueeth A. Alkahtani ◽  
Zoltán László Szabó ◽  
Gan Quan

In this case study the analyses focus on the some correlation compares among EU-28 member states. Also the analyses focus on the wide side overview for the EU-28 member states using eight variances of three principal components for EU-28. The economic growing rate of EU-28 member states concerning some economic issues as GDP growing rate, employment, unemployment accompanying with social protection and government debt, price fluctuating, purchase power parity of consumers and also probably lifelong learning. The eight numbers according to each variance give the average value of KMO, which shows in the first line of T able T. KMO and Bartlett's Test, namely 0.628. In this case all of other variances expect RisPov2014 have strong correlations with themselves. The LLeam2014 has the strongest correlations by value of 0.767 (76%), also the GovDebt2014 has strong one, by 0.744 (74%), HICPan2014 has 0.731 (73%), the GDPcap2014 has value of 0.706 (70.6%). This SPSS statistical program can help to make clear overview for the correlations and differences among EU-28 member states from different issues and approaches, as variances. Also it is important, when the researchers choose these variances; they should know that the correlations among variances based on the principle components. These last one can select variances into different components, which mostly can explain the role and importance of each variance.

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-187
Author(s):  
Pauline Melin

In a 2012 Communication, the European Commission described the current approach to social security coordination with third countries as ‘patchy’. The European Commission proposed to address that patchiness by developing a common EU approach to social security coordination with third countries whereby the Member States would cooperate more with each other when concluding bilateral agreements with third countries. This article aims to explore the policy agenda of the European Commission in that field by conducting a comparative legal analysis of the Member States’ bilateral agreements with India. The idea behind the comparative legal analysis is to determine whether (1) there are common grounds between the Member States’ approaches, and (2) based on these common grounds, it is possible to suggest a common EU approach. India is taken as a third-country case study due to its labour migration and investment potential for the European Union. In addition, there are currently 12 Member State bilateral agreements with India and no instrument at the EU level on social security coordination with India. Therefore, there is a potential need for a common EU approach to social security coordination with India. Based on the comparative legal analysis of the Member States’ bilateral agreements with India, this article ends by outlining the content of a potential future common EU approach.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-173
Author(s):  
Kumush Suyunova

Summary Human rights are indivisible. The EU holds resolute tone against the challenges of universal human rights. As an adequate method of governance the EU acknowledges the rule of law that encompasses transparent and reliable legal system, an independent judiciary, prevention of arbitrary executive power; legal egalitarianism and respect for rights and freedoms of individuals. The concept of democracy determines the values behind the governance of a country. Thus, the EU’s vision of democracy comprises several principles: political equality, representative and participative democracy, which include fair elections, separation of power, effective checks and balances. However, despite the EU’s efforts to promote human rights, rule of law and democracy, some member States are still lagging behind the overall positive achievement. Hungary, who pick up illiberal democracy over established European values, has become the focus of attention.


Author(s):  
Thomas Faist

Europe, and the European Union in particular, can be conceived as a transnational social space with a high degree of transactions across borders of member states. The question is how efforts to provide social protection for cross-border migrants in the EU reinforce existing inequalities (e.g. between regions or within households), and lead to new types of inequalities (e.g. stratification of labour markets). Social protection in the EU falls predominantly under the purview of individual member states; hence, frictions between different state-operated protection systems and social protection in small groups are particularly apparent in the case of cross-border flows of people and resources. Chapter 5 examines in detail the general social mechanisms operative in cross-border forms of social protection, in particular, exclusion, opportunity hoarding, hierarchization, and exploitation, and also more concrete mechanisms which need to be constructed bottom-up.


2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Haddad

AbstractWhile humanitarian intervention in cases of state instability remains a disputed concept in international law, there is consensus in the international community over the need to provide protection to refugees, one of the corollaries of such instability. Using the European Union (EU) as a case study, this article takes a policy perspective to examine competing conceptions of both 'responsibility' and 'protection' among EU Member States. Responsibility can be seen either as the duty to move refugees around the EU such that each Member State takes its fair share, or the duty to assist those Member States who receive the highest numbers of migrants due to geography by way of practical and financial help. Similarly, protection can imply that which the EU offers within its boundaries, encompassed within the Common European Asylum System, or something broader that looks at where people are coming from and seeks to work with countries of origin and transit to provide protection outside the Union and tackle the causes of forced migration. Whether one or both of these concepts comes to dominate policy discourse over the long-term, the challenge will be to ensure an uncompromised understanding of protection among policy-makers.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 403-407
Author(s):  
Juris Rozenvalds

Russian-speaking communities in the member states of the European Union (EU), especially the Baltic States and Germany, have earned special attention, in recent years, as subjects of important integration policies, on one hand, and the main targets of Russia’s propagandist efforts, on the other. Because a significant part of Russian-speaking communities accepted these efforts, questions were raised concerning the effectiveness of previous integration policies to strengthen the national identity and invoke a feeling of political togetherness. Thus the factors fostering and triggering integration and the relations between civic and ethnocultural components of integration are of wide interest. This paper presents a case study of Latvia, as a country with the highest share of Russian-speaking citizens among the EU member states and a clear prevalence of ethnocultural components in its integration policies in recent years. The study examines the successes and failures of the integration policies of Latvia during the last twenty-five years, using mainly direct observations and sociological data collected during the last twenty years. The results show that language knowledge, citizenship status, and socioeconomic conditions play an important role in integration. In addition, these factors appear more effective with development of inclusive political practices and civil society structures, cooperative discourse, and facilitation of mutual trust between ethnolinguistic communities.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-35

Fiscal policymaking of the Member States aims to follow fiscal rules through the economic cycle that ensure macroeconomic sustainability in the European Union (EU). After the 2008 global crisis, the Stability and Growth Pact introduced the enhanced supranational fiscal rules, setting additional boundaries to fiscal deficits and government debt. The new ceiling on the structural deficit in public finance laws of Member States has served to protect creditworthiness. The COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a temporary suspension of the fiscal rules, clearly indicates that the key challenges are to implement a countercyclical policy during upturns, building buffers for bad days. Under the Next Generation Europe’s initiative the European Commission (EC) will borrow up to €750 billion and distribute it over 2021-2024 to Member States (European Commission, 2020a). Raising funds in the EU budget and repayment of the EC debt may lead to amendments to the design and application of the EU fiscal rules. This paper lays out the objectives of the EU current fiscal framework and its main pillars, discusses how the EC new financial instruments for the period 2021-2027 will be accounted for in the Member States’ fiscal framework, and what are its possible changes and challenges after Covid-19 and Brexit.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-197
Author(s):  
Nina Paulovicova

Societies around the globe have been witnessing the emergence of the radical right, often seen as the result of neoliberal globalization. Democratic governance, liberalism, human rights, and values are being questioned while populist, authoritarian, and ethnonationalist forms of governance are being offered. In the European Union, the tumultuous developments have been testing the viability of the identity marker of Europeanness and its perseverance in EU member states. What we are witnessing are significant shifts in the discourse about sameness and otherness, the convergence of left and right ideologies and the emergence of hybrid forms of authoritarianism and democracy that have been dubbed as illiberal democracy or authoritarian liberalism. The rise of the radical right and its mobilization across the EU member states is reflective of these processes, and it is the goal of this author to understand the mechanisms behind the empowerment, mobilization, and normalization of radical right through the case study of Slovakia. In particular, the effort of this paper is to understand how the far-right party Kotlebovci – Ľudová Strana Naše Slovensko (ĽSNS) in Slovakia re-conceptualized the notion of nation and normalized far-right ideology as a pretext of a broader mobilization.


2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jolanta Aidukaite

The paper reviews recent socio-economic changes in the 10 new EU member states of Central and Eastern Europe and the earlier and latest debates on the emergence of the post-communist welfare state regime. It asks two questions: are the new EU member states more similar to each other in their social problems encountered than to the rest of the EU world? Do they exhibit enough common socio-economic and institutional features to group them into the distinct/unified post-communist welfare regime that deviates from any well-known welfare state typology? The findings of this paper indicate that despite some slight variation within, the new EU countries exhibit lower indicators compared to the EU-15 as it comes to the minimum wage and social protection expenditure. The degree of material deprivation and the shadow economy is on average also higher if compared to the EU-15 or the EU-27. However, then it comes to at-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers or Gini index, some Eastern European outliers especially the Check Republic, but also Slovenia, Slovakia and Hungary perform the same or even better than the old capitalist democracies. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, however, show many similarities in their social indicators and performances and this group of countries never perform better than the EU-15 or the EU-27 averages. Nevertheless, the literature reviews on welfare state development in the CEE region reveal a number of important institutional features in support of identifying the distinct/unified post-communist welfare regime. Most resilient of it are: an insurance-based programs that played a major part in the social protection system; high take-up of social security; relatively low social security benefits; increasing signs of liberalization of social policy; and the experience of the Soviet/Communist type of welfare state, which implies still deeply embedded signs of solidarity and universalism.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 513 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. KELLER ◽  
J.-P. ROBIN ◽  
M. VALLS ◽  
M. GRAS ◽  
M. CABANELLAS-REBOREDO ◽  
...  

Fuelled by the raising importance of cephalopod fisheries in Europe, there have been demands from scientists and stakeholders for their assessment and management. However, little has been done to improve the data collection in order to analyse cephalopod populations under the EU Data Collection Framework (DCF). While the DCF allows member states to design flexible national sampling programmes, it establishes the minimum data requirements (MDR) each state is obliged to fulfil. In this study, it was investigated whether such MDR currently set by the DCF allow the application of depletion models (DMs) to assess European cephalopod stocks. Squid and cuttlefish fisheries from the western Mediterranean were used as a case study. This exercise sheds doubt on the suitability of the MDR to properly assess and manage cephalopod stocks by means of DMs. Owing to the high plasticity of life-history traits in cephalopod populations, biological parameters should be estimated during the actual depletion period of the fished stocks, in contrast with the triennial sampling established by the DCF. In order to accurately track the depletion event, the rapid growth rates of cephalopods implies that their populations should be monitored at shorter time scales (ideally weekly or biweekly) instead of quarterly as required by the DCF. These measures would not demand additional resources of the ongoing DCF, but a redistribution of sampling efforts during the depletion period. Such changes in the sampling scheme could be designed and undertaken by the member states or directly integrated as requirements.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-75
Author(s):  
Gediminas Valantiejus

AbstractIn 2016, the European Union has launched a new and ambitious project for the future regulation of international trade in the European Union and the rules of its taxation: since the 1 May 2016, the new Union Customs Code (UCC) has entered into force. It revokes the old Community Customs Code (CCC), which was applied since 1992, and passed in the form of EU regulation sets brand-new rules for the application of Common Customs Tariff and calculation of customs duties (tariffs) in all the EU Member States. It is oriented to the creation of the paperless environment for the formalisation of international trade operations (full electronic declaration of customs procedures) and ensuring of a more uniform administration of customs duties in the tax and customs authorities of the Member States in the European Union. Therefore, the article raises and seeks to answer the problematic question whether the Member States of the European Union themselves are ready to implement these ambitious goals and does the actual practice of the Member States support that (considering the practice of the Republic of Lithuania). The research, which is based on the analysis of case law in the Republic of Lithuania (case study of recent tax disputes between the taxpayers and customs authorities that arose immediately before and after the entry into force of the UCC), leads to the conclusion that many problematic areas that may negatively impact the functioning of the new Customs Code remain and must be improved, including an adoption of new legislative solutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document