Search results

The purpose of this paper is to empirically uncover the relationship between economic integration and levels of entrepreneurial activity across 24 EU countries between 2004 and 2012. The deepening of EU integration corresponds to increases in the size and competitiveness of domestic markets as member states reorient economic activity toward the larger, competitive single market. Spillovers of both economic and political dimensions of integration in the common market on micro firm and self-employment are considered. The paper contributes to the understanding of the hypothesized relationship between globalization and the rise of entrepreneurial economy.

The paper uses fixed effects linear regression models to estimate the marginal effects of economic integration on entrepreneurial activity. Several dependent variables and controls for social, economics, and institutional context are used to confirm the robustness of the results.

The paper finds that increased economic activity of member countries within the EU common market, as well as institutional compliance and integration in the European Monetary Union and Schengen Agreement are positively and significantly associated with the rise of entrepreneurship. Notably, it is found that a standard deviation increase in economic and political integration is associated with, respectively, 16 and 7.2 percent increase in micro firm density. Some preliminary evidence on the quality of the arising entrepreneurial activity are also given.

The paper takes stock of existing descriptive and theoretical literature on global economic integration and entrepreneurship to uncover, for the first time, the empirical relationship between entrepreneurship and levels of economic and political integration within the EU bloc.

An aspect of globalization is the creation of macro-regions through integration. A macro-region is a territorial unit created through the process of cooperation, cohesion, and integration. Areas of integration can be political, economic, and social. An example of a macro-region is the European Union (EU). For EU member states and for acceding countries economic integration means accepting EU rules and regulations. The rationale behind these laws and rules is to increase economic, financial, and trade cooperation among partner countries. To increase the viability of this macro-region, the EU, has emphasized the need for social integration, which is the expansion of self-identification by individuals from viewing themselves as citizens of a country to a broader European identity, a citizen of Europe. This paper evaluates the impact of joining the European Union on the labor markets of Central and Eastern Europe countries, an economic integration; and the parallel expansion of the citizens’ identity expanding to include a European self-image, a social integration.

This study aims to reveal the impact of the “Conference on the Future of Europe” (which was officially launched on May 9, 2021 and lasted for one year) on the European Union (EU) integration. The ultimate goal of the integration movement in Western Europe was defined in the founding agreements as political integration through the strengthening of economic cooperation among member states. It is a fact that very important steps have been taken toward this goal until today. The first of the two main trends that dominate European integration is deepening, which refers to diversifying the areas of cooperation, and the second is enlargement, which means increasing the number of member states by the participation of new ones. Theoretically, there are almost a dozen scenarios for the future of the EU. However, taking into account the EU's internal problems and developments in the current international political system, the strongest scenario emerges as intertwined flexible integration. Indeed, developments in today's world call for a revision of the EU's geopolitical perspective. In addition to the internal factors shaping the future of the EU, the roles of the United States, which is its strategic partner, and China, which has risen to become its largest trading partner, are also important in the international political system. Likewise, there is no doubt that the developments in the Maghreb and Mashriq countries as well as Russia and Turkey will affect European integration.

Many European-level networks and regulatory constellations in different sectors (e.g., energy, telecommunications) without clear anchorage into the European Union (EU) institutional landscape have been subject to increasing efforts by the EU institutions to tie them closer to the EU. They are serving increasingly as platforms for preparing EU policy or for implementing EU decisions, which may result in closer institutional bonds with the EU. This chapter aims at examining the differences and similarities between the process towards more EU-integration in two different domains (i.e., telecommunications and patents) and regulatory constellations (i.e., supranational and intergovernmental).

The chapter analyzes the evolution in the European telecommunication sector and the European Patent System and juxtaposes this analysis with the literature on institutionalization, Europeanization of regulatory network-organizations, and multilevel governance (MLG). It focuses on the role of the European Commission and the interaction with the national regulatory agencies (NRAs) and networks within the institutional framework.

Irrespective of the particular regime (intergovernmental/supranational) in a certain domain or sector, a common trend of closer coordination and integration prompted by the Commission is taking place, which triggers a certain resistance by the national bodies regulating that domain. As long as a specific competence is considered instrumental in the creation of the single market, the Commission has strong incentives to strengthen its influence in this field, even if those competences have been regulated through an independent intergovernmental regime.

The dynamic described in this chapter allows us to reflect upon the MLG conception as developed by Marks and Hooghe (2004), which distinguish between two types of MLG. Type I MLG refers to different levels of governments, more specifically to the spread of power along different governmental levels and the interactions between them. Type II MLG refers to jurisdictions that are both task-specific and based on membership that can intersect with each other. They respond to particular problems in specific policy fields (Marks & Hooghe, 2004). Our analysis shows that the increase in coordination and integration are the outcome of both MLG Type II processes (coordination between two issue-specific bodies) and of MLG Type I processes (tensions between two governmental levels). Furthermore, the negotiation dynamics regarding this increased coordination and integration reveal that the tensions typical of MLG Type I took place as a consequence of the increased coordination between Type II bodies. Put differently, multi-level coordination and integration mechanisms in the EU can be seen as both Type I and Type II processes. They combine features of both categories and reveal that their Type I and Type II features are interdependent.

The analysis in this chapter shows a need for further strengthening the MLG Type I and II conceptual framework by balancing the analytical distinction between the two types with developments about how Type I and Type II are often entangled and intertwined with each other rather than separated realities.

The chapter describes and compares the dynamics in the European telecommunications sector and the European patent system with interesting observations for NRAs and the European Commission with respect to coordination and integration.

The original nature of the current chapter relates to the two selected areas and the addition to the literature on MLG.

First, with respect to the areas investigated the dynamics of the European telecommunications sector have been analyzed also by other authors, but the European patent system is an area which is relatively unexplored in terms of governance research. The combination of the two sectors with a detailed analysis of similarities and differences is highly original and generates interesting lessons with respect to coordination and integration in supranational and intergovernmental regimes.

Second, Marks and Hooghe (2004) distinguish between the two types of MLG as if they are two different constructs that are not related to each other. Our cases and argument cover both types of MLG and show the interconnection between the dynamics taking place in the two types of MLG.

“It should also be noted that the objective of convergence and equal distribution, including across under-performing areas, can hinder efforts to generate growth. Contrariwise, the objective of competitiveness can exacerbate regional and social inequalities, by targeting efforts on zones of excellence where projects achieve greater returns (dynamic major cities, higher levels of general education, the most advanced projects, infrastructures with the heaviest traffic, and so on). If cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy come into conflict, it must be borne in mind that the former, for the moment, is founded on a rather more solid legal foundation than the latter” European Commission (2005, p. 9)Adaptation of Cohesion Policy to the Enlarged Europe and the Lisbon and Gothenburg Objectives.

For both the Czech Republic and Poland, globalization is intricately linked to European integration and Europeanization. Globalization and European integration have strongly influenced the policies of these countries over the last 17 years. The Czech policy of accommodation and the Polish policy of initiation toward the European Union (EU) show two different ways how the individual Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries can react to the process of Europeanization. The Czech and Polish policies within CEE area are illustrative examples of reactions to the supraterritorializing effects of globalization. These two CEE countries have answered some of the challenges of globalization through sub-regional cooperation in the Central European Initiative (CEI), Visegrad Group (VG), and the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA), followed by accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and later joining the EU. The Czech Republic and Poland are gradually entering the area of supra-territoriality. But concurrently both, as EU member states, participate in building and strengthening external territorial borders of the EU through the Schengen Agreement. Despite sharing the experience of disappearing of the EU internal borders, the Czech Republic and Poland have not completely relinquished their existing territorial identity. In the context of the break-up of the Czechoslovak federation it is also useful to examine the issues of deterritorialization and reterritorialization.

This paper documents the EU integration process using the uneven and combined development framework. Because capitalist social relations are territorially defined and politically built, unevenness between countries is not unconnected with that within countries and both involve antagonism between capital and labor. This is manifest in the ‘state form’ of the EU and its anti-democratic tendencies: public institutions at the community level play a major role in reinforcing unevenness in favour of leading countries, in both the productive and financial spheres.

Supply chain literature highlights that environmental uncertainty (EU) encourages firms to integrate their business strategies and develop strategic flexibility (SF). The authors’ use the dynamic capability view (DCV) to explain why the EU motivates firms to develop SF and integrate business strategies for better supply chain coordination (SCC) and enhanced performance. This study tests the role of SCC as a mediator between (1) business strategy integration (BSI) and operational performance, and (2) SF and operational performance. The study also measures the contingent effect of structural constructs on the relationship between EU, BSI and SF.

Data of 356 firms drawn from the continuous innovation network (CINet) are used in this paper. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is used to test the direct, indirect and moderation hypotheses.

The paper finds that EU enhances SF and BSI. Further, BSI has a significant positive impact on SCC that drives operational performance. The paper also finds that SF has no direct impact on SCC rather it affects SCC through BSI. SCC mediates the relationship between (1) SF and operational performance, and (2) BSI and operational performance. The organization's structural factors including connectedness and formalization moderate the effect of EU on BSI and SF.

The paper extends debate at the interface of supply chain risk and strategy literature and provides a specific understanding of the “external-internal-external” mechanism in the context of the turbulent business environment. This mechanism helps to understand why and under what structural conditions EU (external) leads to BSI and SF (internal). Further, BSI and SF (internal) help firms to manage SCC (external) effectively that in turn improve operational performance.

Around 2006, dissensus became predominant in the Hungarian elite concerning internal affairs. Regarding evaluations of the European integration, however, there were no considerable differences between elite groups at that time. The Hungarian political elite supported the integration process and trusted in EU institutions. The present chapter addresses the issue to what extent the elite attitudes regarding European integration prevailed following the economic crisis of 2008. After a brief overview of the Hungarian context, the authors discuss political elites’ (national MPs’) trust in supranational institutions in 2007 and 2014 in the European countries. Our analyses find that the Hungarian political elite became one of the most sceptical elites towards the EU.

Next, the supranational trust of political elite and other (economic, administrative and media) elite groups within Hungary is compared. Results reveal that among Hungarian elite segments there is a hidden tension: political elites are critical towards the EU, while economic and media elites are not.

Finally, turning to the international stage again, the elite–population opinion gap is investigated. It is usually the case that elites are more pro-European than the public. Recently, however, in some respects the Hungarian political elite has shown less trust in EU institutions than the population.