Seminar paper from the year 2004 in the subject Politics - Topic: European Union, grade: 1,0 (A), Hamburg University of Ecomomy and Policy (Political Science), course: Globalisation and European Governance, language: English, abstract: In general terms, both the European Union (EU) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) can be described as governance systems: “Governance is about the structured ways and means in which the divergent preferences of interdependent actors are translated into policy choices to allocate values, so that the plurality of interests is transformed into co-ordinated action and the compliance of actors is achieved.”1 This essay cannot reflect all aspects of the two governance systems, but is limited to a selection of their differences, similarities and mutual influences. After the opening remark alludes to a similarity, the differences will be touched upon next. The individual characteristics of the EU and the WTO become particularly obvious in the institutional set-ups of the two organisations: In the case of the EU one deals with a supranational organisation, what means that the current 15 member states partly transfer sovereign rights to the organisation, thus rendering the EU a partly independent and powerful policy actor. In comparison, the WTO is an intergovernmental organisation, in which its 146 members negotiate without transferring any sovereignity to the organisation, thus depriving the WTO of any independence in policy decisions 2. The WTO is a broad international organisation, its members accounting for over 90 % of all trade in the world, whereas the EU, being a member of the WTO, is a geographically limited and closely integrated organisation. Even though the EU represents just 6 % of the world’s population, it accounts for more than a fifth of global imports and exports3. Concerning the relationship between the two organisations, their origins had an important influence: The WTO was founded in 1995 as a successor of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) from 1947. [...] 1 Beate Kohler-Koch/ Rainer Eising (eds.): The Transformation of Governance in the European Union. London, New York: Routledge, 1999, p. 5. 2 Mary Farrell (ed.): EU and WTO regulatory frameworks. Complementarity or competition? London: Kogan Page, 1999, p. 44. 3 European Union: Making globalisation work for everyone.The European Union and world trade. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2003, p. 4.
Seminar paper from the year 2004 in the subject Politics - Topic: European Union, grade: 1,5, Hamburg University of Ecomomy and Policy (European Studies), course: Political and economic systems in comparative perspective, language: English, abstract: This paper seeks to give a broad overview of the major developments in the French economic order since the Second World War. First by enlarging upon historical changes in the French economic policy and further by describing the structure of the economic sectors of the French economy today, focusing on the French companies. The strengths and weaknesses of the French industrial production will be reflected by an analysis of its export and import sectors. As a theoretical base for the paper serves the Varieties of Capitalism approach by Hall and Soskice. In their theory of comparative capitalism they regard France as one possible model of capitalism, namely in between a coordinated and a liberal market economy (CME/LME). In this paper Hall and Soskice ́s theory is supposed to have an explanatory function for the described institutional characteristics in the French economic order. Generally Hall and Soskice ́s approach has to be seen in the tradition of comparative political economy, yet going beyond former theories as Shonfield ́s modernization approach, neocorporatism or the social systems of production approach. By drawing on game theory Hall and Soskice even create a interdisciplinary approach addressing both econonomics and political scientists. Hall/Soskice try to provide a new theoretical framework to analyse and understand the nationa l similarities and differences in political and economic institutions, shifting the focus of attention to the role of firms in the economic performance and the institutions that condition or alter interaction between economic actors. In these interactions, various actors e.g. firms rationally try to defend their interests. For firms the five most important interaction spheres vital for the firms development, production and profitability are industrial relations, vocational training and education, corporate governance, inter- firm relations and the interaction with their own employees. Interactions like these often create uneven information levels and thus entail coordination problems. Hall and Soskice take the view that the different ways in which firms handle these coordination problems can be used to compare national political economies. Firms in LMEs rather tend to solve their coordination problems with the help of market mechanisms. Firms in CMEs refer to non-market relationships, e.g. institutions that promote the exchange of information among actors. [...]
Seminar paper from the year 2004 in the subject Politics - Topic: European Union, grade: 1,5 (A), Hamburg University of Ecomomy and Policy (European Studies), course: European Employment Policy, language: English, abstract: The European Employment Strategy (EES) is a co-ordinated European approach to employment policy. Moreover it is the framework and the initiator for the annual National Action Plans (NAPs) issued by the Member States of the European Union (EU). The origins of the EES lie in the former EU Commission ́s President Delors ́”White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment” from 1993 and mark a turning point in the field of employment policy, that had before always been a national task, supported solely by elements of intergovernmental cooperation, mainly promoted by the European Commission. Yet in the light of preparing a European Monetary Union, the Member States had to realize that traditional employment creation policies as the adjustment of national interest rates had become obsolete and the common market needed a coordination at Community level. [...]
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.