Search results

Purpose – The process of European integration presents an excellent opportunity for analyzing the social construction of society under modern conditions, and simultaneously for identifying a central pseudo-problem that has preoccupied sociologists, namely: how to define “society.” This attempt to link the sociology of European integration and the sociological theory of society must achieve two tasks: while the latter must explain how presupposing an unequivocal understanding of “society” is problematic, the former must provide a reference frame for evaluating empirical information about the practical use of the term, “society,” within actually existing societies.

Design/methodology/approach – Modern sociological thinking requires that we take seriously the roles and place of actors in society. As a consequence, sociology is obligated to engage in second-order observations. Sociology must observe how people observe and interpret society, and how such observations shape their actions.

Findings – Second-order observations directly influence the sociological use of the term “society”; yet sociology must not rely on a seemingly ready-made understanding of society. It is for this reason that the process of European integration is a stroke of luck for sociology. The process of European integration irritates sociological routines and offers rich empirical data, enabling us to analyze the social construction of a society empirically.

Research limitations/implications – As a sociological concept, “society” has different meanings depending on whether it is used for first-order observations or for second-order observations.

Originality value – The dialectics between institution building and action in the Euro crisis will spur a development quickly transcending the nation-state, concretizing in practice the well-known critique of “methodological nationalism.”

One of today’s realities is that, as a consequence of the consolidation of the European economic integration process, the economies of the different member countries of the European Union are becoming more inter‐dependent and the physical, technical and tax obstacles to cross‐border trade are being diluted. At the same time, European policies and regulations have affected all areas of economic activity. The tourism sector is no exception due to the economic, social and cultural importance that this sector assumes for countries like Portugal. The overall purpose of this article is to analyse the implications of European economic integration in the tourism sector. In this context, the article builds on earlier research on European economic integration and identifies its effects in the tourism sector, focusing on the following tourism economic indicators: employment, income, investments, and balance of payments. The relationship between European financial support and the Portuguese tourism sector will be analysed with some related trends identified.

Despite its somewhat old-fashioned, functionalist air, “integration” is still the most popular way of conceptualizing the developing relationship between old European nation-states and their growing non-European, “ethnic” immigrant populations. It is also widely used to frame the advocacy of political means for dealing with the consequences of immigration in the post-World War II period. Many similar, difficult-to-define concepts can be used to describe the process of social change that occurs when immigrants are “integrated” into their new host society. But none occurs with the frequency or all-encompassing scope of the idea of integration across such a broad range of West European countries. This fact continues to decisively structure policy research and policy debate on these subjects in Europe.

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.

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.

Introduction: Despite its significance, the research on international migration with a specific focus on the European Union (EU) needs to be strengthened with comprehensive studies, for developing better immigration and integration policies. Considering the amplitude of migration flows in Europe and recent challenges brought by the Covid-19 pandemic crisis, the Brexit decision and humanitarian dimension of the migration phenomena (asylum seekers and refugees), the need for better immigration and integration policies within the host countries’ labor markets stands out as a major research direction, especially in case of immigrants looking for better working and living conditions. Aim: This chapter aims to design specific immigration clusters within the main EU-10 destination countries (including Spain, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, UK, Germany, Austria, and Sweden) (cluster analysis procedure); and to identify feasible ways and specific policies for immigrants’ labor market success (spatial analysis and macroeconometric models). Method: The methodological framework consists of two parts: (i) immigration clusters analysis, based on the interlinkages between several fundamental migration coordinates, namely, economic welfare at destination, employment opportunities for the foreign population, migrant integration policies and associated governmental efforts, educational background; and (ii) spatial analysis models, namely spatial lag–autoregressive and spatial error, and other three econometric procedures, respectively, the robust regression, Panel Corrected Standard Errors, and Arellano-Bond Dynamic Generalized Method of Moments. National data compiled for the 10 main EU receiving economies during 2000–2015, with a particular focus on Spain were used. Findings: The impact of the proposed research is reflected through a set of new specific tailored ways, policies and strategies that can be adopted and implemented by the policy-makers across Europe. Our empirical results show that, overall, EU-10 countries still fail to identify immigrants with high levels of education and skills acquired to enhance their potential for labor market integration. Policy-makers should always monitor the specific ways in which migration policies lead to concrete positive labor market outcomes for immigrants and that the tools used for implementing these policies are suitable in achieving predefined migration goals. Therefore, a particular focus should be on developing a new immigration system to select migrants for their skills and high level of human capital, by following the best practices examples of other receiving countries.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the state of integration of securities market infrastructure in Europe.

Given the lack of quantitative and price‐based measures, this paper adopts a rather qualitative approach to evaluating the degree and evolution of integration in the securities market infrastructure within Europe. Future challenges, policy options for regulation and market design are discussed.

Despite its single currency, the euro area securities infrastructure remains highly fragmented due to cross‐border differences in tax regimes, procedures, laws, and vested interests. Cost savings and increased efficiency can be expected from further integration.

This is the only paper which provides a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the current level of integration of the securities infrastructure in the euro area and its implications for regulation and market policy.

The history and prospects of European integration are both fascinating and exciting. Analysts of every aspect of this process, including its cultural, economic, financial, historical, political, and social dimensions, should recall that its main rationale remains as it has always been, to permanently end conflict and to secure peace and prosperity for all Europeans. As the European Union's (EU's) own website (see http://europa.eu.int) points out Europe has been the scene of many and frequent bloody wars throughout the centuries. In the 75-year period between 1870 and 1945, for example, France and Germany fought each other three times with huge loss of life. The history of modern European integration commenced in earnest with the realization in the early 1950s that the best way to prevent future conflict is to secure more economic and political integration. This led to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, followed shortly by the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957. Since then, the process of integration and enlargement has progressed at varying speeds, but always moving forwards. In 1967, the founding institutions of the EEC were merged to form today's European Commission (EC), the Council of Ministers, and the European Parliament. The members of the European Parliament were initially chosen by the member governments of the EEC, but direct elections commenced in 1979, and have continued every 5 years since then. The Treaty of Maastricht created the EU in 1992 and established the process of economic and monetary union (EMU) that culminated in the introduction of the euro in 12 of the 15 Member States in 2002.

Much potential has been ascribed to the emergence and possibilities of a “global civil society,” one that takes the concept of civil society and civic activism and involvement beyond the traditional confines of the nation-state, and moves it instead into a globalized and increasingly politically integrated context. In general, the concept of global civil society has been treated as a positive development, with considerable attention being paid to the emancipatory and participatory opportunities that it presents. This essay explores the other side of the equation, i.e., the marginalization of national and European-level civil society and these participatory and emancipatory benefits in Central and Eastern Europe during a process of globalization and EU integration. Drawing from the emerging literatures on global civil society, this paper compares the normative and empirical emphases of that literature with the experiences and opinions of Central and Eastern European environmental NGOs. It examines how Central and Eastern European environmental movements have moved toward becoming more interconnected both in Europe and worldwide, yet are marginalized in favor of a style of environmental policy-making emerging from Brussels that emphasizes technocracy, scientific over public knowledge, and a top-down approach to the policy-making process. As a result, many of the democratic elements of civil society found at the national level have became neglected at the European and the global levels, replacing democratic politics (at least in the form of social movements) with the emergence of supranational technocratic institutions.