Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship in the Economy of the European Union

Author(s):  
G. Olevsky

The article studies role of knowledge in business and analyzes tendencies of the formation of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship (business) in the EU. It is shown that for small and medium-sized enterprises prospects of expansion of knowledge production and sales of products and services are associated with the internationalization of business. The author proposes the matrix of decision-making entrepreneurs, depending on the completeness and quality of information at their disposal on the market.

2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 719-741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas J. Schoenefeld ◽  
Kai Schulze ◽  
Mikael Hildén ◽  
Andrew J. Jordan

AbstractPolicy monitoring is often seen as a crucial ingredient of policy evaluation, but theoretically informed empirical analyses of real-world policy monitoring practices are still rare. This paper addresses this gap by focusing on climate policy monitoring in the European Union, which has a relatively stringent system of greenhouse gas monitoring but a much less demanding approach to monitoring policies. It explores how institutional settings, policy implementation, and the quality of information may impact the practices and politics of policy monitoring. Drawing on quantitative regression models and qualitative interviews, it demonstrates that policy monitoring has evolved over time and is itself subject to implementation pressures, but also exhibits learning effects that improve its quality. In further developing both everyday policy monitoring practices and academic understanding of them, there is a need to pay attention to their design—specifically, the impact of any overarching rules, the institutional support for implementation, and the criteria governing the quality of the information they deliver. In short, policy monitoring should be treated as a governance activity in its own right, raising many different design challenges.


Politeja ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (54) ◽  
pp. 301-311
Author(s):  
Renata Śliwa

The Process of European Union Regulation in the Light of Treaty of Lisbon and the Essence of Impact Assessment ConceptOn the background of the most pressing problems related to the European Union (EU) power legitimization, the Treaty of Lisbon has been treated as the innovative adjustment in the area of legal, political, economic and administrative spectrum of choices. If the significance of the EU is to continue, the investment in the improvement of the legitimization of the EU power through the efficiency needs to be intensified. Through the lenses of the Treaty of Lisbon the administration servant corpus is presented in its role of knowledge production, as well as the stimulation of transparency and participation in the decision processes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-130
Author(s):  
Gavrilov Doina

AbstractThe EU decision-making process is one that has changed over time with the Treaties, with the extension, modification of EU policies and the areas where the EU is acting. In addition to the above, in 2016 we have one more reason to add to the changing of the decisional process “-Brexit”- a political turnaround that stimulates new changes at the decision-making level and raises questions about the future of the European Union. Federalists claim that these events will lead to a strengthening of the Union, and euro-skeptics claim that this is a step towards breaking the Union. Two years after the Brexit started, the European Union continues to remain a prominent actor in the international arena, but another question is being raised: “Will EU institutions act on the same principles? Or will there be changes in the decision-making process?”. In this article, we will analyse the state coalitions in the decision-making process, and the role of Brexit in forming coalitions for establishing a decisional balance in the European Council. Following the analysis of the power rapport in the European Council, we refer to small and medium-sized states that work together closely to counterbalance the decisions of the big states, and the new coalitions to achieve their goals in the new political context.


Author(s):  
P. V. Otenko

The scientific article is devoted to the issue of complex legal analysis of both advantages and disadvantages of the contemporary system of Commission’s quasi-legislative acts which is composed of implementing and delegated acts. Commission’s implementing and delegated acts play a crucial role in the EU, but the abusive application by the EU legislator of the delegation of quasi-legislative powers to the Commission of the EU cause various negative consequences on the EU legal order. The author outlines the following positive sides of Commission’s quasi-legislative acts: acceleration of the EU decision-making process, adding the EU decision-making process flexibility, improvement of the quality of the EU legislative acts and unloading the overall EU legislature’s workload. Taking into account the latest statistics, the author has proved that the process of the adoption of implementing and delegated acts is in four times faster than ordinary and special legislative procedures. It is emphasized that COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 made the EU urgently enact a bunch of legislative acts that were mainly adopted in the form of Commission’s quasi-legislative acts. The author also points out that the quality of the EU’s legislation has been improved as well as EU’s legislator workload has been greatly reduced because of Commission’s implementing and delegated acts. At the same time, the author specifies that the absence of an explicit legal distinction between Commission’s implementing and delegated acts leads to numerous interinstitutional litigations and disputes and undermines the hierarchy of legal acts under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. It is established that an excessive application by the Commission of the EU of the quasi-legislative instruments may breach the principle of institutional balance and may lead to the replacement of the sole EU legislator – the European Parliament and the Council. Eventually, the author argues that the lack of transparence and accountability of the Commission of the EU during the process of adoption of implementing and delegated acts deepen the ‘democratic deficit’ problem within the EU.


2005 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-241
Author(s):  
Oliver Schmidtke

Informal Governance in the European Union, Christiansen, Thomas and Simona Piattoni, eds., Celtenham (UK) and Northampton, MA (USA): Edward Elgar, 2003, pp. viii, 274.The nature of governance in the European Union (EU), the production of authoritative decisions through a plurality of actors and institutional arrangements, has been at the centre of recent scholarly debates. While at first sight many of its institutions resemble their national counterparts the EU seems to have established a system of governance sui generis with modes of decision-making that reflect the distinct institutional distribution of power and the complex multi-level game of accommodating interests in the regional, national and European arena. Thomas Christiansen and Simona Piattoni have focused on one critical aspect of this evolving mode of decision-making, namely, the role of informal governance. It is defined as the operation of networks and actors pursuing common goals through regular, though not codified and not publicly sanctioned exchanges in the institutional context of the EU.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sacha Garben

An assessment of the balance between ‘the market’ and ‘the social’ by reference to the areas of social policy, the internal market and economic governance – Imbalance resulting from a consitutional displacement of the legislative process (EU and national) and instead decision-making by the judiciary and the executive – Proposals to address the imbalance by reinforcing the role of the EU legislative process and limiting other forms of European integration.


2014 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Dagnis Jensen ◽  
Dorte Martinsen

Co-decisions between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament are increasingly adopted as early agreements. Recent EU studies have pinpointed how this informal turn in EU governance has altered the existing balance of power between EU actors and within EU institutions. However, the implications of accelerated EU decision-making are expected to have repercussions beyond the EU system and in other institutions impinging on the role of national parliaments. This study examines the implications of an alteration of EU political time on national parliaments’ ability to scrutinize their executives in EU affairs. A mixed method approach has been applied. This strategy combines survey data on national parliaments’ scrutiny process and response to early agreements for 26 EU countries with a case study examination of national parliaments in Denmark, the UK and Germany. The burgeoning research agenda on EU timescapes is applied. This study finds that the clocks of most national parliaments are out of time with the EU decision-mode of early agreements, which severely hampers the national parliaments’ ability to scrutinize national governments.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (Vol 18, No 4 (2019)) ◽  
pp. 439-453
Author(s):  
Ihor LISHCHYNSKYY

The article is devoted to the study of the implementation of territorial cohesion policy in the European Union in order to achieve a secure regional coexistence. In particular, the regulatory and institutional origins of territorial cohesion policy in the EU are considered. The evolution of ontological models of cohesion policy has been outlined. Specifically, the emphasis is placed on the key objective of political geography – effectively combining the need for "territorialization" and the growing importance of networking. The role of urbanization processes in the context of cohesion policy is highlighted. Cross-border dimensions of cohesion policy in the context of interregional cooperation are explored. Particular emphasis is placed on the features of integrated sustainable development strategies.


Author(s):  
David Matijasevich

Outside of some states still struggling with post-communist transitions, Europe itself may be the first European democracy to collapse in decades. Though never a bastion of participatory democracy and even subject to continuous criticism due to its democratic deficit, the European Union (EU) has provided hope to those who envision a post-national democratic political community. As such, whether the EU survives its present crisis or not, cosmopolitan democrats will look to the EU as a vindication of their ideals. Though perhaps surprising given their track record, this paper will argue that political scientists, especially those concerned with democratization, can also be optimistic about what the EU has brought to the table in terms of how we conceive processes of democratic development. Throughout the paper it will be demonstrated that the creation and maintenance of the European democracy has challenged much of the literature's fundamental assumptions of what makes democracy work. Five key lessons from the European democratic experience will be presented in an attempt to disrupt some of these assumptions including lessons regarding the diversity of the demos, the contingency of democratic upkeep, the challenges of the state, the role of elites in political transformation, and the necessity of exclusion within inclusive spaces. Though a general theory of democracy will not be presented, suggestions will be made as to how we can incorporate some of these lessons into the dominant approaches to democracy found in the literature.   Full text available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v7i1.214


Author(s):  
Antoine Vandemoorteele

This article analyzes the role of the European Union (EU) and Canada in the promotion of Security Sector Reforms (SSR) activities in two regional organizations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The concept of SSR seeks to address the effective governance of security in post-conflict environment by transforming the security institutions within a country in order for them to have more efficient, legitimate and democratic role in implementing security. Recent debates within the EU have led to the adoption of an SSR concept from the Council and a new strategy from the European Commission on the SSR activities. Within the framework of the ESDP, the EU has positioned itself as a leading actor, in this domain, including in its crisis management operations. On the other hand, Canada, through its whole-of government and human security programs has also been an important actor in the promotion of SSR activities. Yet, even though several international organizations (including the United Nations, the OSCE and NATO) are effectively doing SSR activities on the ground, there does not exist a common framework within any of these organizations despite the role of the EU and Canada. As such, it is surprising to found no global common policy for SSR while this approach is precisely holistic in its foundations. Taking these elements into consideration, this paper analyzes two specific aspects : a) the absence of a common policy framework within international organizations and b) the major differences between the approaches of the OSCE and NATO in the domain of SSR and the implications for the EU and Canada’ roles.   Full extt available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v3i2.186


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document