Search results

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

In line with the main idea of the book, this chapter deals mostly with the structural or socio-economic dimension of integration, with a special focus on labour market inclusion. The integration of immigrants in the Czech labour market is viewed from an institutional and organizational perspective. The main emphasis of the chapter is on immigration from outside the EU. The author first provides an outline of the general trends in labour migration since the beginning of the century and analyzes the impact of selected labour market–related migration and integration policies and practices. Based on an analysis of policy documents, official statistics and available sociological research, the text discusses some major challenges to the successful integration of immigrants in the Czech labour market, with a special focus on the main actors and institutions involved in the process. In her analysis of the integration process, the author discusses the regulatory (or rather restrictive) role of Czech employment offices, the symbolic (or rather ineffective) role of trade unions and, last but not least, the crucial role of Czech NGOs working with non-EU immigrants. The latter are seen as key facilitators of migrant integration and not only in terms of their operative function (e.g. working in the field and assisting immigrants) but also in advocating for immigrants' rights.

This chapter is an attempt at designing a post-positivist way of understanding policy evaluation and practices while exploring a hermeneutic approach toward integrating technology into schools. In this chapter, the author mainly focuses on three central themes on understanding policy making and evaluation: (a) type of practice (b) nature of knowledge, and (c) issue of evaluation. For each of the themes, the author compares a technical-positivist model of understanding policy making and evaluation with a way of understanding drawn from a hermeneutic approach. The former model is committed to and realized by means of an instrumental and objective knowledge for integration; the latter is connected to human existence, who we already are, and who we want to become. In the chapter, the author designs a practical policy and integration unit to partially describe the ethical, political, practical, and deliberative dimensions of the hermeneutic approach toward integrating technology into classroom practices.

This paper offers an empirical study of the Emergency Support to Integration and Accommodation (ESTIA) programme, as the policy initiative for the provision of housing and social integration for asylum seekers over the last few years in Greece. Greece is a country that is geographically situated on the southern external borders of Europe and has been experiencing a rise in refugee flows since 2015. At a first glance, it seems that ESTIA’s central aim is social integration. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the design and implementation framework of ESTIA essentially promotes the goal of social integration or whether it is merely a gesture that has no real effect.

The field research focussed on an evaluation of the ESTIA programme on the basis of its impact on the social integration of its beneficiaries. This was attempted by examining the attitudes and perceptions of key stakeholders during its design and implementation stages. In order to examine these dimensions, qualitative research methods were developed. In particular, in-depth interviews were conducted with key informants involved in the design and implementation processes of ESTIA.

Social integration is something much more than providing permanent shelters to asylum seekers. ESTIA has been designed and implemented with a view to providing better temporary housing conditions for its beneficiaries. The rest of the range of actions for their social actions was left to voluntary actions by the implementing agencies, without offering them any financial support – a fact that suggests that the use of the term “social integration” in relation to this programme is disingenuous. Such an intervention does not aim at significant social integration but, primarily, the temporary management of extreme impoverishment. ESTIA can, therefore, be added to the scientific literature as yet another case study where the complex concept of social integration is misused by the EU and European states to legitimise the policies of repression and control of refugee populations.

This is the first field research that examines the design and implementation framework of ESTIA, the most important programme for the social integration of asylum seekers in Greece. The presentation of research findings is expected to make a significant contribution to the improvement of many aspects of the design and implementation framework of ESTIA.

“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.

Immigration represents one of the most contentious and complicated issues for social democracy in many national contexts. In Scandinavia, the social democratic parties have been particularly tormented, being split internally on central concerns related to immigration policy. Social democratic parties in Scandinavia have had a basically ambiguous relationship to the issue from the initiation of the era of ‘new immigration’. This chapter argues that this can be explained by the specifically strong attachment and ‘ownership’ of these parties to the Scandinavian welfare model, with its particular claims on a strong tax base and an orderly labour market. ‘Social democracy’ is dealt with mainly as an institutional and political entity, close to what goes as ‘The Nordic Model’ in the international literature. The chapter describes and analyses similarities and differences between the three Scandinavian countries, through a historical exposé of the period after the early 1970s; on the one hand, the institutional and normative prerequisites for social democracies in handling migration, and on the other hand, the way in which recent flows of migrants have influenced the very same social democracies. Theoretically, the chapter is drawing on conceptual tools from political economy, citizenship discourse and institutional theory.

Integration is policy, practice as well as object of systematic investigation. What we do not know is whether or not integration can be understood as a science. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn formulated a notion of (natural) sciences based on the emergence of commitments amongst a community of scientists to a set of logics, model and exemplars. He called this a paradigm. The purpose of this paper is to assess the scientific nature of integration by perceiving it as a paradigm in Kuhn’s sense.

The paper proceeds by conceptual reflection through matching existing components, theories and exemplifications of integration to Kuhn’s model of a scientific paradigm. Integration is understood broadly, either vertical or horizontal, and located within the practical domains of policy formulation, policy implementation and evaluation research. The nature, scope and depth of group commitments amongst students and practitioners of integration receive particular attention in line with Kuhn’s social interactionist approach.

Employing Kuhn’s notion of paradigm in the context of integration highlights the fundamental tension between integration efforts and integration outcomes. Whilst integration defines itself in contradistinction to professional boundaries and fragmentation, the paper argues that it fails to develop a strong theoretical and empirical foundation for a robust and stable group commitment. The reason is that the key motivational force that may create a stable group commitment amongst those engaged in integration, the patient perspective, remains outside the integration paradigm. This leaves integration as a practice and policy model underdeveloped, mainly paradigmatically illustrated by singular exemplars and rooted in aspirational policy vocabulary, while clustered around a near dogmatic belief that working together between services must lead to improved quality of care. To become a scientific paradigm the group commitment in integration would have to coalesce around a clear ontology (symbolic generalisations), epistemology (models of knowledge) and manifestations in practice (exemplars).

At present both the ontology and epistemological foundations of integration practice and research are insufficiently clear. This hampers the development of integration practice as well as a better understanding of how to evaluate integration outcomes. Future studies should focus on the depth, nature and subject of group commitments to assess whether integration is a viable candidate for scientific paradigm or an assorted construct of policy aspirations.

The paper questions the rigour and trajectory of integration practice, policy and research. It identifies a tension at the centre of the field between group commitments to scientific exemplars (case studies) and symbolic generalisations, encapsulated in the desire to improve patient care. The notion of a scientific paradigm thus helps to re-frame the discussion about research and practice in integration.

The purpose of this paper is to critically reflect on the practice, rhetoric and reality of integrating care. Echoing Le Grand's framework of motivation, agency and policy, it is argued that the stories the authors tell themselves why the authors embark on integration programmes differ from the reasons why managers commit to these programmes. This split between policy rhetoric and reality has implications for the way the authors investigate integration.

Examining current integration policy, practice and research, the paper adopts the critical framework articulated by Le Grand about the underlying assumptions of health care policy and practice.

It is argued that patient perspectives are speciously placed at the centre of integration policy but mask the existing organizational and managerial rationalities of integration. Making the patient the measure of all things integration would turn this agenda back on its feet.

The paper discusses the underlying assumptions of integration policy, practice and research. Increasing the awareness about the gap between what the authors do, why the authors do it and the stories the authors tell themselves about it injects a much needed amount of criticality into research and practice.