The Impact of European Integration on Private Law: Reductionist Perceptions, True Conflicts and a New Constitutional Perspective

If private law is defined simply as a matter of core areas such as substantive contract, torts, property or family law, it may be doubted whether European law has significantly affected national private law systems; or conversely, whether national private law is relevant to European integration. However, this paper argues that such conclusions are misleading: while there have been very few European interventions into the core areas of civil codes or the common law, the integration process has impacted forcefully upon deeper structures of national legal systems. Challenging the institutional embeddedness of national private law, European primary and regulatory law has remodelled (public) concepts of private autonomy, the realm of private governance and the social responsibility of private actors. How then to present and evaluate this indirect impact? Drawing upon concrete examples, this paper seeks first to understand this European challenge to the interdependence of national private law, borrowing from political science's analytical tool of multi-level governance to highlight the complex interrelations between European rights and regulatory law and national private law; and secondly attempts actively to assess the legitimacy of the impact of integration upon private law with the aid of the explicitly normative theory of deliberative supranationalism. However, precisely because Europe remains in a state of flux, and dependent upon contingent political processes, no final conclusions are drawn: as is the case with so many areas subject to integrationist logic, the contours of the ‘new European private law’ cannot be laid down in advance, and are instead a long and weary matter of cooperation and fine-tuning between national and European judiciaries.     

Technology licensing contracts features and diversity

Given the nature of knowledge and characteristics of the intellectual property rights system, technological transactions tend to be governed by contracts that are costly and not highly profitable. This explains why there are so few technology licensing agreements. However, in some situations, private and specific institutions tend to enable property rights to be more precise, knowledge transfers to be easier, and technology licensing agreements to be less complex to design and to run. This explains why there is a concentration of technology licensing agreements in some industries and in some relational situations. These shed light on the design of firms’ strategies to valorize intellectual assets and of public policies to stimulate innovation and diffusion.     

Is Leadership in the Eye of the Beholder? A Study of Intended and Perceived Leadership Practices and Organizational Performance

Leadership is a matter of both intentions and perceptions, which do not necessarily always match. Because employees’ motivation and commitment are only affected by leadership if they notice it, employee‐perceived leadership is expected to have a stronger correlation with organizational performance than leader‐intended leadership. This expectation is tested for transformational and transactional leadership, as both types of practices are expected to increase performance. Using a sample of 1,621 teachers and 79 Danish high school principals, the authors find that leader‐intended and employee‐perceived transformational and transactional leadership are only weakly correlated and that only employee‐perceived leadership practices (both transformational and transactional) are significantly related to objectively measured school performance. The results show that it is important to distinguish between intended and perceived leadership and that leaders should be aware of how their practices are perceived.     

Explaining Explanations: How Legislators Explain their Policy Positions and How Citizens React

Legislators claim that how they explain their votes matters as much as or more than the roll calls themselves. However, few studies have systematically examined legislators’ explanations and citizen attitudes in response to these explanations. We theorize that legislators strategically tailor explanations to constituents in order to compensate for policy choices that are incongruent with constituent preferences, and to reinforce policy choices that are congruent. We conduct a within‐subjects field experiment using U.S. senators as subjects to test this hypothesis. We then conduct a between‐subjects survey experiment of ordinary people to see how they react to the explanatory strategies used by senators in the field experiment. We find that most senators tailor their explanations to their audiences, and that these tailored explanations are effective at currying support—especially among people who disagree with the legislators’ roll‐call positions.     

Information Aggregation and Optimal Structure of the Executive

We model two aspects of executives in parliamentary democracies: Decision‐making authority is assigned to individuals, and private information is aggregated through communication. When information is relevant to all policies and communication is private, all decisions should be centralized to a single politician. A government that holds cabinet meetings, where information is made available to all decision makers, outperforms one where communication is private: A multimember cabinet can be optimal; it need not be single peaked around the most moderate politician or ideologically connected. Centralization is nonmonotonic in the degree of ideological divergence. In a large cabinet, all power should be given to the most moderate politician. Even when uncertainty is policy specific and a single politician is informed on each policy, power should never be fully decentralized. Our model provides a justification for centralized authority and cabinet meetings that enhance the quality of policy.