Search results

Seminario impartido en la XXXVII Reunión Bienal de la RSEF. Zaragoza, julio de 2019 ; An study of the driving forces of CO2 emissions in the member states of the European Union (EU-28)

This study examines whether the CEECs' financial market development can explain the EU FDI in the CEECs during 1994-2012. The higher bank credit flows had a positive effect on the FDI in 2005-2012. This can be attributed to the major banking sector reforms undertaken before the CEECs' EU accession. Second, the stock market size had a positive effect in 1997-2004. This is due to the fact that the EU membership announcement facilitated deeper stock market integration. Third, the higher country income, in interaction with a higher bank credit flow, had only a small positive effect in 2005-2012. The higher income CEECs have pursued much deeper bank liberalization through large-scale privatization of state-owned banks. Finally, the higher country income, in interaction with a larger stock market size, had a negative effect in 2005-2012. A possible reason for this is that the EU countries have started to divert their new FDI to the non-EU countries.

BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study has generated a wealth of data on death and disability outcomes in Europe. It is important to identify the disease burden that is attributable to risk factors and, therefore, amenable to interventions. This paper reports the burden attributable to risk factors, in deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), in the 28 European Union (EU) countries, comparing exposure to risks between them, from 2007 to 2017. METHODS: Retrospective descriptive study, using secondary data from the GBD 2017 Results Tool. For the EU-28 and each country, attributable (all-cause) age-standardized death and DALY rates, and summary exposure values are reported. RESULTS: In 2017, behavioural and metabolic risk factors showed a higher attributable burden compared with environmental risks, with tobacco, dietary risks and high systolic blood pressure standing out. While tobacco and air quality improved significantly between 2007 and 2017 in both exposure and attributable burden, others such as childhood maltreatment, drug use or alcohol use did not. Despite significant heterogeneity between EU countries, the EU-28 burden attributable to risk factors decreased in this period. CONCLUSION: Accompanying the improvement of population health in the EU-28, a comparable trend is visible for attributable burden due to risk factors. Besides opportunities for mutual learning across countries with different disease/risk factors patterns, good practices (i.e. tobacco control in Sweden, air pollution mitigation in Finland) might be followed. On the opposite side, some concerning cases must be highlighted (i.e. tobacco in Bulgaria, Latvia and Estonia or drug use in Czech Republic).

Civil society organisations (CSOs) play a prominent role in influencing national, regional and international policies. They are a key player in democratic societies, have shown to complement (and even replace) governments when it comes to health delivery and provision of services, and have gradually become global players as a result of globalisation. The focus of this study is the policy work of European CSOs representing (directly or indirectly) patients, and which normally act on behalf of national CSOs. The study aims to assess how successful civil society is in representing patients at the EU level and whether this representation has led to policy change. The dissertation explores factors that may influence the success of CSOs when advocating for EU health policies. A two-fold method has been adopted. The first element includes a review of scientific (28 articles were fully read and others consulted). The second element includes 14 semi-structured interviews conducted with high level stakeholders, 12 with representatives from CSOs working at the European policy level and two with officials working for institutions that develop and implement policies (i.e. policy-makers). Findings suggest that it is difficult to measure the influence of CSOs in EU health due to the abstract nature of policy work and the policy process, which is not linear. Moreover, the number of interactions and collaborations that exist are complex in nature hence difficult to map and analyse. Although there are challenges that both CSOs and policy-makers face in relation to patient participation in the development and implementation of policy, a number of success stories were provided showing that CSOs play an instrumental role in EU and national health policy. Although the complexity of EU advocacy makes generalisations difficult, patterns were found in interviews such as the way partnerships and coalitions are built, the way challenges are addressed and the way CSOs adapt to policy change. Future research is needed to explore in-depth ...

'Die große Beitrittsrunde im Mai 2004 mit zehn neuen Mitgliedsländern hat gezeigt, dass die Europäische Union gewillt ist, Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit, verbunden mit Menschenrechten und Minderheitenschutz im Beitrittsprozess einzumahnen. Gerade deshalb stellt sich die Frage, welche Standards die EU diesbezüglich aufgestellt hat. Nachdem nun eine weitere Erweiterungsrunde abgeschlossen ist (Bulgarien und Rumänien) und die nächste verhandelt wird, gilt es zu überprüfen, wie sich diese auf den Beitrittsprozess auswirken. Bei der Analyse anhand der Fortschrittsberichte der EU-Kommission für Bulgarien und Rumänien kristallisiert sich ein unvollständiges Demokratiebild heraus: (1) zentrale demokratietheoretische Aspekte wie etwa umfassende Partizipation der BürgerInnen und Schutz vor staatlicher Willkür finden keine bzw. wenig Beachtung. (2) Zudem zeigt sich, dass in den Berichten genannte gravierende Defizite keine Auswirkung auf den Beitrittsprozess haben, da die zu allgemein gehaltenen politischen Kriterien von Kopenhagen seit 1998 als erfüllt gelten. (3) Es bleibt festzustellen, dass eine Überarbeitung dieser Kriterien unumgänglich für die folgenden Beitrittsprozesse ist.' (Autorenreferat)

This study concerns the co-decision and co-governing system basing on the European Commission (EC) and the European Parliament (EP) as an example. However, it is not a direct description of functions of these institutions but a presentation of results of empirical studies, including respondents' knowledge about the EC and EP functioning. In the study the following thesis were verified: awareness and knowledge of the EU institutions is greater in the border regions because of participation in the process of euroregionalisation; level of knowledge about the integration is related to education, the higher and more comprehensive it is, the greater the understanding of the institutionalization of integration; residents of urban areas have greater knowledge about integration than people who live in rural areas.

This study concerns the co-decision and co-governing system basing on the European Commission (EC) and the European Parliament (EP) as an example. However, it is not a direct description of functions of these institutions but a presentation of results of empirical studies, including respondents' knowledge about the EC and EP functioning. In the study the following thesis were verified: awareness and knowledge of the EU institutions is greater in the border regions because of participation in the process of euroregionalisation; level of knowledge about the integration is related to education, the higher and more comprehensive it is, the greater the understanding of the institutionalization of integration; residents of urban areas have greater knowledge about integration than people who live in rural areas.

This study concerns the co-decision and co-governing system basing on the European Commission (EC) and the European Parliament (EP) as an example. However, it is not a direct description of functions of these institutions but a presentation of results of empirical studies, including respondents' knowledge about the EC and EP functioning. In the study the following thesis were verified: awareness and knowledge of the EU institutions is greater in the border regions because of participation in the process of euroregionalisation; level of knowledge about the integration is related to education, the higher and more comprehensive it is, the greater the understanding of the institutionalization of integration; residents of urban areas have greater knowledge about integration than people who live in rural areas.