Suchergebnisse

29 cm ; This article seeks to trace the growing dissension over the logic of European cohesion policy. Two perspectives are fighting for dominance, the European and the national. Only the European Commission and the European Parliament are actively promoting the European logic, which has gained ground over time through the overarching strategization (or Lisbonization) of European policies. In contrast, the memberstates subscribe to a national logic concerning European cohesion policy. This outlook is particularly notable among the 'friends of cohesion policy', a group that includes the southern, central, and eastern European countries. The funding allocated through the EU is applied in individual national markets, not in the single European market. In this regard, the concept of European cohesion policy to adjust national markets towards the European level has been sidelined by the national logic. This contribution attempts to reconstruct the dispute over the purpose of European cohesion policy since the reform of structural funds in 1988, focusing primarily on the latest rounds of negotiations over the multiannual financial framework (in which cohesion policy funds are a central issue) and the emerging conflict between the core and the periphery in the political economy of the European Union. If the European logic regarding the single European market's construction does not prevail, European integration will stagnate or even reverse, and national compartmentalization of cohesion policy may become the dominant spatial model in Europe. ; 29 cm ; Każdy numer posiada własny tytuł. ; This article seeks to trace the growing dissension over the logic of European cohesion policy. Two perspectives are fighting for dominance, the European and the national. Only the European Commission and the European Parliament are actively promoting the European logic, which has gained ground over time through the overarching strategization (or Lisbonization) of European policies. In contrast, the memberstates subscribe to a national logic concerning European cohesion policy. This outlook is particularly notable among the 'friends of cohesion policy', a group that includes the southern, central, and eastern European countries. The funding allocated through the EU is applied in individual national markets, not in the single European market. In this regard, the concept of European cohesion policy to adjust national markets towards the European level has been sidelined by the national logic. This contribution attempts to reconstruct the dispute over the purpose of European cohesion policy since the reform of structural funds in 1988, focusing primarily on the latest rounds of negotiations over the multiannual financial framework (in which cohesion policy funds are a central issue) and the emerging conflict between the core and the periphery in the political economy of the European Union. If the European logic regarding the single European market's construction does not prevail, European integration will stagnate or even reverse, and national compartmentalization of cohesion policy may become the dominant spatial model in Europe.

Abstract
This introductory article sets out the European Union context of the special issue. Its main purpose is to present an overview of the changing role of the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union. After a brief introduction, the first section discusses the theoretical approach applied in the study of rotating EU Council Presidencies – primarily, historical, rational and sociological institutionalism. All these aspects are inherent in the relatively informal structure within the Council of Ministers. Subsequently, an abbreviated account of the evolution of the rotating presidency is provided. This is followed by a section analysing the main functions of the presidency and how the Iberian presidencies have used these functions. The template employed is relatively simple; later articles in the special issue may use it to the degree it is relevant to their focus. It has been argued that until the Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009, the rotating presidency could be used to enhance a country's global image, mainly through the external representation role assigned to the institution. The Portuguese presidency of 2007 was probably the last such presidency. As a consequence of the reforms undertaken throughout the new millennium intended to help the EU adjust to enlargement, the presidency has lost visibility. The Spanish presidency of 2010 can been identified as the first in which perceptions of the old and new rotating presidency roles conflicted with each other, leading to failure in many areas. The article finishes by describing the principal aims of the special issue and summarizing the individual contributions.