scholarly journals Na ile innowacyjny jest eksport usług z Polski?

Author(s):  
Elżbieta Czarny ◽  
 Andżelika Kuźnar ◽  
Katarzyna Śledziewska 

We analyse Polish export of services, examining how innovative it is. We examine both the changes in the size of Polish exports of services as well as the importance of branches and geographical directions. We stress the relatively small economic and, consequently, export potential of Poland, as compared to the EU and the USA. At the same time, similar potentials of the EU and the USA, and different geographic distances and characteristics of their connections with Poland were the reason for comparing Poland's exports to both partners. To analyse Poland's total export of services, we add to the two previously mentioned trade partners a third group, which consists of relatively less developed countries. Consequently, the recipients of services from Poland are divided into the European Union, the United States and other trading partners defined as non-EU markets minus the USA. Due to absence of data and limited research framework, we limit the overall analysis to the years 2004-2013, while the detailed (industry) analysis to the years 2004-2012. In either case, the last year of the survey is also the last year for which annual Eurostat data is available.

Author(s):  
Michael Smith ◽  
Rebecca Steffenson

This chapter examines the evolution of the European Union's relations with the United States. More specifically, it looks at the ways in which EU–US relations enter into the international relations of the EU as well as the implications for key areas of the EU's growing international activity. The chapter begins with an overview of the changing shape and focus of the EU–US relationship as it enters into economic, political, and security questions. It then considers the impact of EU–US relations on the EU's system of international relations, on the EU's role in the processes of international relations, and on the EU's position as a ‘power’ in international relations. It shows that the EU–US relationship has played a key (and contradictory) role in development of the EU's foreign policy mechanisms.


Author(s):  
Ruth A. Bevan

The basic thesis of this paper is that Southeast Asia will be the crucible and the testing ground for a new Euro-American partnership. Both the United States and the European Union have vital interests in Southeast Asia. These interests certainly involve economics. They definitely concern security issues. And, for both the United States and the European Union, though for similar reasons differently nuanced, these interests aspire to the realm of ideals and idealism, of norms and normativism.


2019 ◽  
pp. 316-322
Author(s):  
M. HADDAD

The article is devoted to the study of foreign policy strategies of the main actors of the world politics, represented by the USA and the countries of the European Union, regarding the Middle East and the Syrian Arab Republic. The interest in this topic is explained by the particular attractiveness of the Middle East region for the above-mentioned actors, since it has significant economic and transport potential and a favorable geographical position, which opens up opportunities for establishing strong partnership trade and economic ties between the US and the EU on the one hand and Middle Eastern states on the other. At the same time, the Middle East, as a region of increased military-political and social tension, directly influences peace and security situation in the entire world, and because of that the most developed countries of the world seek to establish control over the internal politics in the Middle East and spread their influence on its territory. The author pays great attention to the study of factors that have contributed to the formation of certain US and EU foreign policy courses in respect of the entire Middle East and Syria in particular, and comes to the conclusion that all of them can conditionally be divided into several large groups that equally affect the development process strategies. Their comparison allowed us to establish that in general both the USA and the countries of the European Union have similar perspective goals and objectives, however, they use different methods and forms of implementing their strategies. This explains the difference in the results achieved: while the United States successfully implement their geopolitical aspirations and gradually strengthen their presence in the Middle East, the EU countries are faced with a number of problems that impede their participation in the current regional events. Nevertheless, despite the successes and failures, the importance of the Middle East region for both the United States and the EU is beyond doubt.


Author(s):  
Attarid Awadh Abdulhameed

Ukrainia Remains of huge importance to Russian Strategy because of its Strategic importance. For being a privileged Postion in new Eurasia, without its existence there would be no logical resons for eastward Expansion by European Powers.  As well as in Connection with the progress of Ukrainian is no less important for the USA (VSD, NDI, CIA, or pentagon) and the European Union with all organs, and this is announced by John Kerry. There has always ben Russian Fear and Fear of any move by NATO or USA in the area that it poses a threat to  Russians national Security and its independent role and in funence  on its forces especially the Navy Forces. There for, the Crisis manyement was not Zero sum game, there are gains and offset losses, but Russia does not accept this and want a Zero Sun game because the USA. And European exteance is a Foot hold in Regin Which Russian sees as a threat to its national security and want to monopolize control in the strategic Qirim.


Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Mauro G. Carta ◽  
Matthias C. Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, and 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as a sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilaria Espa ◽  
Kateryna Holzer

Abstract In the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the European Union (EU) has taken the lead in promoting the inclusion of a specific chapter on energy trade and investment in order to enhance energy security and promote renewable energy. Irrespective of the success of the TTIP negotiations, the EU proposal can contribute to developing multilateral rules on energy trade and investment. This is especially important given the increased number of energy disputes filed by the EU and the United States against other leading energy market players, including the BRICS. This article provides a normative analysis of the new rules proposed by the EU and reflects on potential responses of BRICS energy regulators. It argues that, while these rules are unlikely to immediately affect BRICS energy practices, they may eventually be ‘imported’ in BRICS domestic jurisdictions in order to promote renewable energy and attract investment in energy infrastructure.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem Maas

Abstract This article surveys some general lessons to be drawn from the tension between the promise of citizenship to deliver equality and the particularistic drive to maintain diversity. Democratic states tend to guarantee free movement within their territory to all citizens, as a core right of citizenship. Similarly, the European Union guarantees (as the core right of EU citizenship) the right to live and the right to work anywhere within EU territory to EU citizens and members of their families. Such rights reflect the project of equality and undifferentiated individual rights for all who have the status of citizen. But they are not uncontested. Within the EU, several member states propose to reintroduce border controls and to restrict access for EU citizens who claim social assistance. Similar tensions and attempts to discourage freedom of movement also exist in other political systems, and the article gives examples from the United States and Canada. Within democratic states, particularly federal ones and others where decentralized jurisdictions are responsible for social welfare provision, it thus appears that some citizens can be more equal than others. Principles such as benefit portability, prohibition of residence requirements for access to programs or rights, and mutual recognition of qualifications and credentials facilitate the free flow of people within states and reflect the attempt to eliminate internal borders. Within the growing field of migration studies, most research focuses on international migration, movement between states, involving international borders. But migration across jurisdictional boundaries within states is at least as important as international migration. Within the European Union, free movement often means changing residence across jurisdictional boundaries within a political system with a common citizenship, even though EU citizenship is not traditional national citizenship. The EU is thus a good test of the tension between the equality promised by common citizenship and the diversity institutionalized by borders.


Author(s):  
Roberto Dominguez ◽  
Joshua Weissman LaFrance

The history of the European Union (EU) is closely associated with the development of the United States. As the process of European integration has produced institutions and gained a collective international presence, the United States has been a close observer, partner, and often critic of the policies and actions of the EU and its member states. A steady progression of events delineates this path: the Marshall Plan, origins of European integration, the Cold War, the post–Cold War, 9/11 and its effects on the international system, the Great Recession, and the deterioration of global democracy. All throughout, the EU and the United States have both cooperated and collided with one another, in line with the combination of three main factors: (a) the evolution of the EU as an independent, international actor; (b) American strategies for engagement with Europe and then with the EU; and (c) the adaptive capacity and cohesion of the overall transatlantic relationship. The EU–U.S. relationship is significant not only for the influential role of the EU in world affairs but also because, as opposed to China or Russia, the transatlantic area hosts one of the most solid relationships around the world. Crises surely have been, and will be, a frequent aspect of the intense interdependences on both sides of the Atlantic; however, the level of contestation and conflict is relatively low, particularly as compared with other areas that smoothly allow the flow of goods, services, people, and ideas. Taken altogether, then, the transatlantic relationship possesses a strong foundation: it is integral, resilient, and enduring over a history of diplomatic disagreements and conflicts. The primary question remains just how this steady stream and confluence of shared challenges ultimately will fare in face of evolving crises and systemic disruptors. In any case, the answer is determined by the enduring nature, and foreign policy choices, of the primary actors on each side of the Atlantic.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 491-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaffa Epstein

AbstractThis article compares the use of litigation to enforce species protection law in the European Union (EU) with that of the United States (US). Recent legal disputes over wolf hunting on both continents offer useful case studies. Focusing on three aspects of litigation – namely, (i) against whom claims are brought, (ii) who can bring claims, and (iii) the types of claim that can be brought – the analysis contrasts US-style adversarial legalism with its European counterpart, or ‘Eurolegalism’, and assesses what each approach is able to deliver in terms of the legal protection of wolves. It is argued that Eurolegalism helps to explain the development of species protection law in the EU and its similarities to and differences from the American experience.


Author(s):  
Jean-Christophe Bureau ◽  
Luca Salvatici

Abstract This paper provides a summary measure of the possible new commitments in the area of agricultural market access undertaken by the European Union and the United States, using the Trade Restrictiveness Index (TRI) as the tariff aggregator. We take the 2001 bound tariffs as the starting point and attempt to assess how much liberalization in agriculture could be achieved in the European Union and the United States as a result of the present negotiations. We compute the index for 20 agricultural commodity aggregates under the actual commitments assuming a specific functional form for import demand. We compare the present levels of the TRI with three hypothetical cases: a repetition of the same set of tariff cuts commitments of the Uruguay Round according to a EU proposal prior to the 2003 WTO ministerial meeting, a uniform 36% reduction of each tariff, an harmonization ( "Swiss" ) formula based on the initial US proposal.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document