A Comparative Analysis of E-Collaboration Research Funding in the European Union and the United States

2009 ◽  
pp. 40-48
Author(s):  
Ned Kock ◽  
Pedro Antunes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Government Funding ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Government Investment ◽  
Research Tradition ◽  
Steady Growth ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

Much of the funding for research and development initiatives in the area of e-collaboration comes from government agencies in various countries. Government funding of e-collaboration research in the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.), in particular, seems to be experiencing steady growth in recent years. In the EU, a key initiative to promote governmental investment in e-collaboration research is the Collaboration@Work initiative. This initiative is one of the EU’s Information Society Technologies Directorate General’s main priorities. In the U.S., government investment in e-collaboration research is channeled through several government branches and organizations, notably the National Science Foundation. There are key differences in the approaches used for government funding of e-collaboration research in the EU and U.S. Among other differences, the EU model appears to foster research that is aligned with the action research tradition, whereas the U.S. model places emphasis on research that is better aligned with the experimental research tradition.

US Perspectives on the EU Medical Device Approval System, and Lessons Learned from the United States

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-464
Author(s):  
Christa Altenstetter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
The United States ◽  
Interdisciplinary Studies ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

The literature on the regulation of drugs at the FDA and the European Union is substantial, yet little research has provided comparative analyses and robust empirical data on the regulation of medical devices in the United States and the European Union. As medical and health markets become increasingly globalized, and the U.S. and the EU compete for leadership and recognition, salient domestic regulatory issues are becoming increasingly international and transnational policy issues. Building on Carpenter's (2010) work on drug regulation at the FDA, but taking a slightly narrower yet at the same time a broader approach by drawing on interdisciplinary studies instead of limiting ourselves to only the Political Science literature, this comparison focuses on key aspects of risk regulation and governance of medical devices in the U.S. and the EU, and shows how and why individual and organizational learning is imperative in each case.

scholarly journals Estimation of Demand for Wheat by Classes for the United States and the European Union

1999 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samarendu Mohanty ◽  
E. Wesley F. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Common Wheat ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Protein ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Complementary Relationship ◽  
Export Subsidies ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

This study estimates demand for wheat differentiated by classes using a dynamic AIDS model for the United States and the European Union (EU). The results suggest that imported wheat is more price responsive than domestic wheat in the U.S. market but not in the EU market. This may suggest that the Canadian policy that reduces prices of Canadian wheat in the U.S. market or U.S. export subsidies that raise prices of U.S. wheat could be expected to give rise to substantial substitution of Canadian for U.S. wheat. It is also found that in the EU, complementary relationships exist between spring and other wheat groups. This complementary relationship between the lower and higher quality wheat in the EU is not surprising because EU millers blend cheaper wheat such as EU common wheat and U.S. other wheat with high protein (spring) to obtain the preferred characteristics.

News aggregators and copyright in the European Union and the United States in the digital age: Evolution, comparisons, and implications

First Monday ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qun Wang ◽  
Susan Keith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
Regulatory Trends ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

News aggregators have triggered copyright-related disputes between tech companies and news publishers. In the EU and the U.S., copyright systems have developed distinct characteristics. Because American tech companies stand to be hugely affected by the EU’s new copyright rules, some observers point out that the copyright war in Europe is fundamentally a collision between European and American copyright law systems. To respond to this observation, this study examines and compares European and U.S. perspectives on copyright and uses copyright as a lens to explore how digital platforms that aim at global influences provide the opportunity for different legal systems and legal traditions to converse and conflict. Through the comparison, this study argues that fundamental issues such as the nature of news are not effectively addressed in either system. While the EU and the U.S. present different regulatory trends in the case of copyright, a two-way shaping is at play.

scholarly journals The Trend of Scientific Productivity of Chinese, EuropeanUnion, and United States Universities and Private Companies: Does the Future Belong to E-Technology Companies?

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Mauro G. Carta ◽  
Matthias C. Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
American Universities ◽  
The Us ◽  
Parametric Statistics ◽  
The Eu

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.

Negotiating 21st Century Rules on Energy: What Is at Stake for the European Union, the United States and the BRICS?

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilaria Espa ◽  
Kateryna Holzer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Renewable Energy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Energy Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Energy Trade ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
The Eu

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.

Free Movement and Discrimination: Evidence from Europe, the United States, and Canada

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem Maas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
International Migration ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The United States ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Good Test ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

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.

Government Funding of E-collaboration Research in the European Union

2009 ◽  
pp. 142-150
Author(s):  
Ned Kock ◽  
Pedro Antunes
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Information Society ◽  
National Science Foundation ◽  
Government Funding ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Government Investment ◽  
The Us ◽  
National Science ◽  
Us Government ◽  
The Eu

Government funding of e-collaboration research in both the US and EU seems to be growing. In the EU, a key initiative to promote governmental investment in e-collabo-ration research is the Collaboration@Work initiative. This initiative is one of the EU’s Information Society Technologies Directorate General’s main priorities. In the US, government investment in e-collaboration research is channeled through several gov-ernment branches and organizations, notably the National Science Foundation. There are key differences in the approaches used for government funding of e-collaboration research in the EU and US. Some of these differences are discussed here, as well as related implications.

The United States and the European Union

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Dominguez ◽  
Joshua Weissman LaFrance
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Cold War ◽  
European Integration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Marshall Plan ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Transatlantic Relationship ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Eu

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.

Tiptoeing the Line Between National Security and Protectionism: A Comparative Approach to Foreign Direct Investment Screening in the United States and European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (02) ◽  
pp. 105-117
Author(s):  
Jason Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
National Security ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
The U.S

AbstractWeaponization of state-backed, foreign investments by China is an emerging national security threat in the United States and the European Union. The U.S. and E.U. have espoused similar policy goals—to address the threat without closing their markets to foreign direct investment—while fostering increased cooperation between allied partners in screening transactions.On the surface, the recent, China-specific measures taken by the U.S. and the investment screening framework adopted by the E.U. appear reflective of an alignment of those policy goals. Indeed, many commentators have suggested that is exactly what is happening. However, closer examination reveals a stark divergence. The U.S. has a robust screening mechanism that has evolved into a weapon of economic warfare. The E.U. meanwhile, remains a patchwork of conflicting—or nonexistent—national regulations overlaid by a comparatively toothless investment screening framework.There is a tendency to attribute this divergence to structural differences between the United States and European Union. This in-depth comparison of U.S. and E.U. investment screening mechanisms exposes a split that goes beyond application and into actual policy. This revelation should temper expectations that the E.U. is equipping itself to block transactions that are of concern to the U.S.

Adversarial Legalism and Biodiversity Protection in the United States and the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 491-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaffa Epstein
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Species Protection ◽  
American Experience ◽  
European Counterpart ◽  
The Eu

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document