Suchergebnisse

Forthcoming in Intereconomics – Review of European Economic Policy, Springer, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2007. The authors are Associate Professor, Universidade Moderna, Lisbon, and Research Fellow at IEEI and Professor and Research Coordinator, IEE, Universidade Católica, Lisbon, and National Institute for Public Administration (INA), respectively. ; In order to ensure that the internal market delivers (growth, jobs) in the face of a changing market and technological environment (internal market liberalisation, globalisation, the knowledge-based economy) and to take advantage of the opportunities that it presents, the European Union (EU) needs to create an adequate institutional framework that promotes its efficiency potential and adaptive capacity. In the reality of European mixed economies, its capacity to solve the structural problems that impair productivity and economic growth in Europe hinges very much on governance, in particular when reforms to realise international synergies and complementarities or policy-learning with a view to common goals involve not only the EU but as well the Member State level. The Lisbon Agenda can be considered an exercise of policy coordination that needs to ensure that Member States' over-regulated economies comply both with liberalisation in the Single Market and with an adequate European-wide institutional environment for sustainable growth without coordination mismatches, protectionism and market segmentation. This ultimately raises the question, central to this paper, of the adequate governance level and of the regulatory model to adopt (systems competition and/or European regulation). ; This paper stems from the authors' joint research and teaching on European Economics at the University of Victoria, Canada, at INA and at the University of Aveiro in 2005 and 2006 and is part of an FCT research project on Economic Growth, Convergence and Institutions (research grant POCI/EGE/55423/2004, partially funded by ...

International audience ; Nowadays, most European welfare states have to face a crisis and to adapt themselves in the context of globalisation. This is true for most of the "original" European member states, so what a challenge for the European central and eastern countries that had to reform deeply their social systems in order to fit the rules of the market economy and join the European Union. So the point is to know in which direction the national systems of social protection are going by now.

This article argues that the OMC's legitimacy can be improved only by strengthening parliamentary channels of input-legitimacy since output-legitimacy alone is inappropriate and cannot be achieved without input-legitimacy. In addition, concepts and practices of direct 'stakeholder' participation currently applied within the OMC are insufficient in strengthening input-legitimacy. Adapted from the source document.

"Am Beispiel der Etablierung der 'neuen Methode der offenen Koordinierung' ('neue OMC') im Politikfeld 'Bekämpfung von Armut und sozialer Ausgrenzung' wird gezeigt, warum Scharpf in seiner integrationstheoretischen Klassifizierung der OMC mittels seiner 'Typen der Europäisierung' einen Einschätzungswechsel von 2000 bis 2002 vorgenommen haben könnte. Des Weiteren wird geprüft, ob Scharpfs Typologie die neuen Formen des sozialpolitischen Regierens in der EU hinlänglich erfassen kann. Abschließend werden Forschungsperspektiven aufgezeigt, die zu einer präziseren, integrationstheoretischen Klassifizierung der 'neuen OMC' beitragen könnten." (Autorenreferat)

» See video of presentation (24 min.) Digital technologies, growth and globalization of the research community, and societal demand to address the Grand Challenges of our times, are driving changes in the dynamics of research, an evolution sometimes referred to as "Science 2.0". They impact the entire research workflow, from securing resource, through conducting research, to disseminating the results using more routes than ever before, to peers, industry and society. This broad transmission of the results and benefits of research also paves the way for citizens and civil society organizations to be much more directly and actively involved as "agenda gatekeepers", with a role in steering research, and perhaps even as funders themselves.These changes result in a more complex research ecosystem, populated by more stakeholders with ever higher expectations. The resources to support this ecosystem are not infinite, and these changes also drive the development of additional approaches into evaluating research alongside the well-established practices of peer review, and of securing expert opinion and narratives. This has driven a growing interest in the use of research metrics, alongside qualitative inputs, in making allocation decisions.In just the same way as the changes leading to Science 2.0 are driven bottom-up, Elsevier believes that the most effective way to embed quantitative insights along the existing qualitative is by endorsing a community-built solution. We are bringing our technical expertise and global reach to bear to facilitate democratic initiatives. One example of this is our engagement with the Snowball Metrics program [1], in which universities agree amongst themselves on metrics that give them useful strategic insights, rather than accept metrics that funders find useful and which are often, in effect, imposed. The initiative tests the methods on all available data sources to ensure they are robust and commonly understood and will support apples-to-apples benchmarking, and publish the metrics "recipes" for free so that they can be used by anyone, for their own purposes and, if applicable, under their own business models.Such engagements have shaped Elsevier's position on research metrics and their use in research assessment. We recognise the need for a much broader range of research metrics than has traditionally been available: publication and citation metrics remain valuable, but must be complemented by those in other areas such as collaboration, deposition and reuse of research data, and benefit to society. Our vision is to be able to provide quantitative information about the entire research workflow, and we are engaging on several fronts to make this vision a reality.At the same time, we have also learnt about how the research community expects research metrics to be used in a responsible way, and our approach embraces this [2]. We recognize that metrics never reflect 100% of research activity, and that they should always be used together with qualitative inputs: peer review, expert opinion and narrative. The methods underlying any metric should be open to build trust, and to stimulate debate and improvement where needed, so that these same methods can be applied to all data available, whether they are open or proprietary. This consistent approach will bring the greatest benefit to the research community.ReferencesSnowball Metrics Recipe Book: http://www.snowballmetrics.com/wp-content/uploads/snowball-recipe-book_HR.pdf.Elsevier's position on the role of metrics in research assessment: http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/research-intelligence/resource-library/resources/response-to-hefces-call-for-evidence-independent-review-of-the-role-of-metrics-in-research-assessment.

The aim of this paper is to capture and explain the differential influences of non-binding agreements (i.e., soft law) launched by the European Union. More specifically, this piece proposes a theoretical framework to understand why and how the European Employment Strategy has affected domestic settings in Belgium, Spain, and Sweden in similar and different ways. To answer this question, I develop a theoretical toolbox to guide researchers who study and analyze policy areas ruled by non-binding agreements. More specifically, to develop my arguments, I focus on four types of internalization: 1) legal, 2) political, 3) intra-governmental, and 4) governmental-societal. The paper seeks to contribute to the literatures on Europeanisation and 'second image reversed' by developing theoretical propositions about the domestic factors that facilitate and hinder the internalization of supranational non-binding regulations on EU Member States. In addition, the paper seeks to make a contribution to the literature on welfare states in advanced industrial states as I argue that contemporary accounts of European welfare state reform ought to consider the articulation of rules outside the realm of nation-states, specifically those launched by the supranational level, given that these soft mandates have the capacity to subtly transform domestic policies and institutions.

At its Lisbon Summit in March 2000, the European Council decided to apply the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) to innovation policies. The aim is to establish a European Research Area, in which the OMC shall increase the coherence of regional, national and European policies. Until now, however, the OMC has only been applied to a very limited extent. We argue that this development is due to the fact that there are specific conditions for policy coordination in the emerging European multi-level innovation system that have hardly been mirrored by late EU initiatives for a more coherent European Research Area and its new open method of coordination.

Part 1: Semantic Concepts and Open Data ; International audience ; Open Data is a current trend in sharing data on the Web. Public sector bodies maintain large amounts of data that, if re-used, could be a source of significant benefits. Therefore Open Government Data initiatives have been launched in many countries in order to increase availability of openly licensed and machine-readable government data. Because Open Data publishers face various challenges, methods for publication of Open Data are emerging. However these methods differ in focus, scope and structure which might complicate selection of a method that would suit specific needs of an organization. In this paper we discuss the possible benefits of constructing Open Data publication methods from a meta-model and we use the Software and Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model version 2.0 to analyze similarities and differences in structure of three Open Data publication methods.

Since 2008, the European Union, and especially the Eurozone, is hit by a deep economic crisis that translates into rising unemployment, rising poverty rates, and rising inequalities. Even if some countries, like Italy, Greece, Portugal,and Spain, face more serious social challenges than others, similar trends occur almost everywhere. However, we should remember that even before the crisis the social situation was deteriorating in many European countries, despite the factthat an "open method of coordination" (OMC) on social inclusion had been launched by the European Commission in 2000.Of course, one could hardly deny the fact that the crisis actually amplifies these social problems. In this paper, I will nevertheless argue that it would be too simplistic to have an exclusive focus on the current economic downturn. Indeed, in order to think about new welfare strategies, we need to look at what has failed in the policies that have been designed so far. When they do so, an increasing number of researchers now conclude that some of the social policies that were implemented during the 2000s, i.e. during the first decade of the OMC on social inclusion, had a very limited impact – or even a negative impact – on social justice across Europe. My modest aim is to look at some of these policies, first at a general level (section 1), and second at a more specific level, through some illustrative examples in one member-state, Belgium (section 2). The following sections are not based on first-hand research, but are rather aimed at reviewing the most interesting features of the current academic discussion in Belgium. The paper relies especially – although not exclusively – on research conducted by experts at Belgium's most advanced research centre in social policy, the Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy at the University of Antwerp. ; Desde 2008, la Unión Europea, y en particular, la Eurozona, ha sido golpeada por una profunda crisis económica que se ha traducido en un crecimiento del desempleo, las tasas de pobreza y las desigualdades. Aunque algunos países como Italia, Grecia, Portugal y España hacen frente a cambios sociales más serios, éstos se están produciendo con idéntico sentido en todas partes. No obstante, se debe recordar que incluso antes de la crisis, la situación social se había deteriorado en muchos países europeos, a pesar de que "el método abiertode coordinación" (OMC) se había puesto en marcha por la Comisión Europea en el año 2000. Nadie puede negar que la crisis haya acentuado e intensificado estos problemas sociales. En este artículo, sin embargo, se tratará de argumentar que resulta demasiado simplista centrarse exclusivamente en la actual crisis. De hecho, de cara a idear nuevas estrategias de bienestar, es necesario saber qué es lo que ha fallado en las políticas diseñadas tiempo atrás. Muchos investigadores sostienen que algunas de las políticas sociales implementadas durante los 2000, esto es, durante la primera década del OMC sobre inclusión social, han tenido un impacto muy limitado o incluso unas consecuencias negativas en Europa. El modesto propósito de este trabajo, es analizar algunas de estas políticas, primero a nivel general (sección 1), y en segundo lugar a un nivel más específico, a través de ejemplos ilustrativos de un Estado miembro: Bélgica (sección 2). Este trabajo no está basado en investigaciones de primera mano, pero sí en las investigaciones más relevantes de la discusión académica que hoy está presente en Bélgica. El documento se basa especialmente - aunque no exclusivamente - en la investigación llevada a cabo por expertos en el centro de investigación en política social más avanzado de Bélgica, el Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy de la Universidad de Amberes.

Since 2008, the European Union, and especially the Eurozone, is hit by a deep economic crisis that translates into rising unemployment, rising poverty rates, and rising inequalities. Even if some countries, like Italy, Greece, Portugal,and Spain, face more serious social challenges than others, similar trends occur almost everywhere. However, we should remember that even before the crisis the social situation was deteriorating in many European countries, despite the factthat an "open method of coordination" (OMC) on social inclusion had been launched by the European Commission in 2000.Of course, one could hardly deny the fact that the crisis actually amplifies these social problems. In this paper, I will nevertheless argue that it would be too simplistic to have an exclusive focus on the current economic downturn. Indeed, in order to think about new welfare strategies, we need to look at what has failed in the policies that have been designed so far. When they do so, an increasing number of researchers now conclude that some of the social policies that were implemented during the 2000s, i.e. during the first decade of the OMC on social inclusion, had a very limited impact – or even a negative impact – on social justice across Europe. My modest aim is to look at some of these policies, first at a general level (section 1), and second at a more specific level, through some illustrative examples in one member-state, Belgium (section 2). The following sections are not based on first-hand research, but are rather aimed at reviewing the most interesting features of the current academic discussion in Belgium. The paper relies especially – although not exclusively – on research conducted by experts at Belgium's most advanced research centre in social policy, the Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy at the University of Antwerp. ; Desde 2008, la Unión Europea, y en particular, la Eurozona, ha sido golpeada por una profunda crisis económica que se ha traducido en un crecimiento del desempleo, las tasas de pobreza y las desigualdades. Aunque algunos países como Italia, Grecia, Portugal y España hacen frente a cambios sociales más serios, éstos se están produciendo con idéntico sentido en todas partes. No obstante, se debe recordar que incluso antes de la crisis, la situación social se había deteriorado en muchos países europeos, a pesar de que "el método abiertode coordinación" (OMC) se había puesto en marcha por la Comisión Europea en el año 2000. Nadie puede negar que la crisis haya acentuado e intensificado estos problemas sociales. En este artículo, sin embargo, se tratará de argumentar que resulta demasiado simplista centrarse exclusivamente en la actual crisis. De hecho, de cara a idear nuevas estrategias de bienestar, es necesario saber qué es lo que ha fallado en las políticas diseñadas tiempo atrás. Muchos investigadores sostienen que algunas de las políticas sociales implementadas durante los 2000, esto es, durante la primera década del OMC sobre inclusión social, han tenido un impacto muy limitado o incluso unas consecuencias negativas en Europa. El modesto propósito de este trabajo, es analizar algunas de estas políticas, primero a nivel general (sección 1), y en segundo lugar a un nivel más específico, a través de ejemplos ilustrativos de un Estado miembro: Bélgica (sección 2). Este trabajo no está basado en investigaciones de primera mano, pero sí en las investigaciones más relevantes de la discusión académica que hoy está presente en Bélgica. El documento se basa especialmente - aunque no exclusivamente - en la investigación llevada a cabo por expertos en el centro de investigación en política social más avanzado de Bélgica, el Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy de la Universidad de Amberes.

In this article the economic and social impacts of the coordination of pensions and pension policy in the EU are analysed. Three different aspects are discussed: the coordination of the individual social security rights of migrant workers; the coordination of national social protection systems; and the coordination of economic and employment policies as far as they affect social security. With respect to the coordination of the individual social security rights of migrant workers, it is argued that this is a prerequisite for the free movement of workers in the EU. The article discusses the impacts of this coordination, such as impacts on pension payments arising from EC Regulation 883/2004 (formerly EC Regulation 1408/71), and the provision of international counselling events. It is noted that the Regulation covers not only old age pensions but also pensions in cases of reduced earning capacity and benefits for rehabilitation. The second area of coordination is implemented through the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). It is argued that, on the one hand, the OMC provides support to national governments to deal with the challenges of social security systems. On the other hand, the OMC also directly influences national social security policies, even though they are actually the responsibility of national authorities. Implications for national pension policy can also be found in the third area of coordination. Both Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and Employment Guidelines are used, which set targets which are relevant for pension policy, such as placing limits on public expenditure and the prolongation of working life. Finally it is argued that in the growing field of second- and third- pillar pension systems there is a need for further coordination.