scholarly journals Liberalization and Governance in the Geographical Distribution of Pharmacies in Spain

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 34
Author(s):  
Ángel Miramontes Carballada ◽  
Rubén C. Lois-González
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Care ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Health Tourism ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Northern European ◽  
Health Infrastructure ◽  
Exhaustive Study ◽  
The Eu

The Health system in Spain is considered one of the most valued public services by the population. In fact, during the first decade of the 21st century, Spain became a health tourism destination for people from central and northern European countries. In addition to the health infrastructure, the quality of medical and nursing care stands out. Something similar also happens with the Spanish pharmaceutical system. However, there are some characteristics that should be addressed from a Geography perspective. The pharmacies’ legal system does not consider them to be of public interest. One is when some of the main activities are the sale and distribution of medicines that are partially paid for by the Administration, that is, Social Security. In the same activity, the public function is combined with the private interests of the pharmacy owners to provide a balanced territorial service. One of the conclusions demonstrates how the borders that are sometimes created by the Administration are not always the most efficient in relation to the characteristics of the territory, nor do they provide the best service to the population and, therefore, create territorial imbalances within a country. To reach our conclusions, we carried out an exhaustive study of the pharmacy legislation in the EU and in Spain, as well as Geography of Health and theories of territorial location. We combined this information with statistics on the territorial characteristics of Spain. This allowed us to confirm the peculiarities that exist within the governance of the distribution of pharmacy offices in Spain.

scholarly journals The liberty of the moderns: Market freedom and democracy within the EU

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
RICHARD BELLAMY
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Representative Democracy ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Liberty ◽  
Free Markets ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Logical Entailment ◽  
The Eu

AbstractTaking its cue from Benjamin Constant’s famous comparison of the liberty of the ancients with that of the moderns, this article examines the compatibility of democracy with free markets within the EU. Constant argued that commerce had replaced the political liberty of the ancients with the civil liberties of the moderns. Nevertheless, he contended a degree of political liberty remained necessary to guarantee these civil liberties. The difficulty was whether the political system could operate in the interest of all if modern citizens had ceased to identify with the public interest in the manner of the ancients and preferred to pursue their private interests. Constant believed representative democracy offered a form of political liberty that was compatible with modern liberty. It involved a less demanding view of civic virtue to ancient liberty and a different conception of the public interest as promoting rather than in conflict with private interests. However, for it to operate as Constant expected required certain social and cultural conditions that emerged in European nation states but are not themselves the products of commerce and may even be undermined by it: namely, a national identity; a social contract; and political parties. The EU involves a further deepening of modern commercial liberty beyond the nation state. This article explores three main issues raised by this development. First, have any of the three elements that facilitated the operation of representative democracy within the member states evolved at the EU level? Second, if not, is it possible to create an effective form of representative democracy on a post-national basis as the logical entailment of the liberties of the moderns? Third, if neither of these is possible, can we simply detach modern liberty from political liberty and see social rights as attributes of free movement, and efficient and equitable economic regulations as the products of technocratic governance? All three questions are answered in the negative.

scholarly journals Government-to-Business (G2B) Research Data Sharing and the GDPR: Reconciling the 'Public' with the 'Private'?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stergios Aidinlis
Keyword(s):  
Data Processing ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
The Eu

Governments across the EU are increasingly turning their attention to advanced big data analytics, aiming to use their data to inform the design and implementation of public policies. Due to limitations in expertise and resources, this is often impossible without the formation of data sharing partnerships with private actors. Yet, the prevailing view in EU data protection regulatory guidance is that the ‘public interest’ and private interests as lawful grounds for data processing under article 6 GDPR find themselves in a zero-sum relationship. The ‘public interest’ under article 6(1)(e) GDPR is construed as the exclusive realm of public authorities, which are often advised against relying on other grounds for processing, associated with private interests, such as ‘legitimate interests’ under article 6(1)(f) GDPR. This chapter argues against the presently dominant divide between public and private interests under lawful grounds for processing, sketching the emergence of Government-to-Business (G2B) research data sharing in the EU. A conceptualisation of the ‘public’ interest as not incompatible with private interests, as long as a contribution to societal well-being is made through data processing, is offered in that regard. The chapter elaborates on this conceptualisation and the requirements for ensuring protection of the fundamental rights of data subjects, while reflecting on the research questions that should concern future EU data protection law researchers with regard to its adoption.

scholarly journals Developments in National Cancer Control Programmes in Europe – Results From the Analysis of a Pan-European Survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 107327482110415
Author(s):  
Marjetka Jelenc ◽  
Elisabete Weiderpass ◽  
Patricia Fitzpatrick ◽  
Tit Albreht
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
The Public ◽  
Cancer Management ◽  
Control Programmes ◽  
Implementation And Dissemination ◽  
Entire Trajectory ◽  
The Eu

Introduction National Cancer Control Programmes (NCCPs) provide a country’s policy framework for the development of cancer control, focussing on the reduction of cancer morbidity and mortality and improving quality of life of cancer patients. Objective Exploring and analysing to which extent some of the key elements of the European Guide for Quality National Cancer Control Programmes (Guide) are implemented in NCCPs in the EU. Methods Survey carried out through 30 countries, EU members, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway and Turkey, focussing on stakeholders’ participation, inclusion of all the envisaged chapters from the Guide as well as implementation and dissemination. Results The results of the policy survey on European NCCPs carried out within Cancer Control Joint Action (CANCON JA) are presented. The response was 30 out of 35 countries. In total, 28 out of 30 countries, which completed the survey, had an NCCP or another cancer document. Cancer documents were mostly single documents, managed and supervised by the respective Ministries of Health and communicated to the public via websites and press. Nine documents were defined as programmes, eight as plans and six as strategies; in five countries, terminology was mixed. Regarding the content, recommended by the Guide from 2015, comprising ten chapter areas in three parts. Only 10 countries included in their NCCPs all elements suggested in the Guide. Conclusion Based on our results, we can see that a more comprehensive approach in the process of NCCPs is needed. Policy should focus on the development of instruments for efficient cancer management, which would encompass the entire trajectory of the cancer care from diagnosis to survivorship and supportive care.

scholarly journals Governing Knowledge: Intellectual Property Management for Development and the Public Interest

2015 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 69-88
Author(s):  
Leonardo Burlamaqui
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Intellectual Property Management ◽  
Analytical Perspective ◽  
The Right

The core point of this paper is the hypothesis that in the field of intellectual property rights and regulations, the last three decades witnessed a big change. The boundaries of private (or corporate) interests have been hyper-expanded while the public domain has significantly contracted. It tries to show that this is detrimental to innovation diffusion and productivity growth. The paper develops the argument theoretically, fleshes it out with some empirical evidence and provides a few policy recommendations on how to redesign the frontiers between public and private spaces in order to produce a more democratic and development-oriented institutional landscape. The proposed analytical perspective developed here, “Knowledge Governance”, aims to provide a framework within which, in the field of knowledge creation and diffusion, the dividing line between private interests and the public domain ought to be redrawn. The paper’s key goal is to provide reasoning for a set of rules, regulatory redesign and institutional coordination that would favor the commitment to distribute (disseminate) over the right to exclude.Keywords: knowledge management, intellectual property, patent, public, interest, public sector, private sector, socioeconomic developmen

Public Servitudes for the Certain Types of Facilities Placing: Towards a Discussion on Public Interest Presence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.P. Ushakova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Private Interest ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Arbitrary Decision ◽  
The Right

From the standpoint of the dominant interest criterion the article examines the justification of the legislator`s decision to apply public law methods in order to regulate relations concerning the use of land for infrastructural facilities placing. The author gives the arguments in favor of understanding the public interest as the interest of the whole society as a system, rather than the interest of an indefinite range of persons or the majority of the population. The author concludes that there is the simultaneous presence in the specified legal relations and private interests of the participants of legal relations, and public interests of society as a system. Both types of interests in these legal relations are important, but in terms of different aspects of the legal impact mechanism. Public interest is important because its realization is the purpose of legal regulation of this type of legal relations, from this point of view it acts as a dominant interest. The private interest of the holder of a public servitude is important as an incentive to attract the efforts of private individuals to achieve a publicly significant goal. The private interest of a land plot owner is important from the point of view of securing the right of ownership. It is substantiated that the public servitude is not an arbitrary decision of the legislator, but an example of application of the incentive method in the land law, which provides a favorable legal regime for a socially useful activity.

20. Mergers (1): introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 852-870
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Foreign Acquisition ◽  
The Subject ◽  
National Governments ◽  
Key Industries ◽  
The Eu

This chapter briefly discusses the subject of merger control. Merger control is an important component of most, though not all, systems of competition law. Merger control has been under particular scrutiny in recent years, partly as a result of the rapid development of digital technologies and the emergence of powerful digital platforms. Separately there has been a certain backlash against the trend towards the globalisation of markets, and national governments, as well as the EU, have considered whether controls over the foreign acquisition of key industries are required, and whether the basic test of merger control – would a merger be harmful to competition? – should be supplemented by broader provisions enabling ‘the public interest’ to be taken into account. Against this background, the chapter begins by explaining what is meant by a ‘merger’ or ‘concentration’, the term used by the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). It then proceeds to describe the different effects of mergers between independent firms from within and different production levels, the proliferation of systems of merger control, why firms merge, and the purpose of merger control. The final section of the chapter deals with how to design a system of merger control when a country decides, as a matter of policy, to adopt one.

Governments and Activities in the Public Interest

2019 ◽  
pp. 154-177
Author(s):  
Sijbren Cnossen
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
The Self ◽  
African Countries ◽  
The Public ◽  
African Experience ◽  
The Eu

Chapter 11 discusses the EU legacy of taxing public bodies, illustrated by the African experience. The EU’s out-of-scope approach is bedevilled by distortions arising from the self-supply bias, the investment disincentive, and, somewhat more remotely, unfair competition vis-à-vis the private sector. Outside Africa, countries with VAT have addressed these issues differently. Various EU countries and Canada, for example, have designed input tax refund mechanisms to eliminate the self-supply bias and the investment disincentive. Still other countries, such as New Zealand, tax governments and activities in the public interest in full and have thus come to terms with the unfair competition issue, too. A concluding section summarizes the characteristics and effects of the various approaches and attempts to formulate a recommendation for African countries.

Google’s Private Copyright Rule-Making and Algorithmic Enforcement

Google Rules ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 117-134
Author(s):  
Joanne Elizabeth Gray
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Digital Copyright ◽  
The Past ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Regulatory Systems ◽  
Public Rights ◽  
Private Actors ◽  
Copyright Enforcement ◽  
Rule Making

This chapter evaluates Google’s approach to copyright enforcement across its own platforms. Increasingly, Google self-regulates and negotiates with rightsholders to privately devise copyright rules. Google then deploys algorithmic regulatory technologies to enforce those rules. Indeed, over the past decade, Google has developed a range of algorithmic tools it uses to deter copyright infringement, enforce copyrights, and remunerate rightsholders. These activities limit transparency and accountability in digital copyright governance and privilege private interests and values over the public interest. In a digital environment dominated by powerful private actors, the use of algorithmic regulatory systems poses a critical problem for public rights and democratic, accountable systems of governance, now and into the future.

Accreditation and the enhancement of the quality of professional education

1992 ◽  
Vol 82 (6) ◽  
pp. 328-335
Author(s):  
J Levrio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Professional Education ◽  
Educational Outcomes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Accreditation Process ◽  
Professional Standards ◽  
The Public ◽  
Unique System

The postsecondary accreditation process is a unique system that attempts to evaluate and enhance the quality of higher and professional education in the United States. Critics of accreditation see the process as coercive and a deterrent to academic freedom while others call for accreditors to exercise greater authority. The origination of the process was a result of a number of coinciding events involving the development of educational and professional standards and concern over access. The current focus on assessment of educational outcomes has further established the credibility of postsecondary accreditation and its role in protecting the public interest.

The Fight against Terrorism, Fundamental Rights and the EU Courts: The Unsolved Conundrum

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 269-295
Author(s):  
Eva Nanopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public Security ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Conflicting Demands ◽  
The Eu

AbstractUsing the example of anti-terrorism measures, this chapter looks at the difficulties experienced by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in reconciling the conflicting demands of fundamental rights protection and public security. It shows that under the current arrangements, the CJEU cannot have regard to information which has not gone through a proper adversarial hearing, even in cases where disclosure of the relevant information will jeopardise the public interest. The chapter thus envisages the possibility for reform. It examines, in particular, the special advocate procedure and the sort of difficulties that its transposition in the EU context would give rise to.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document