Strategic or Principled? The Engagement of Civil Society Organizations with the EU

This article links the literature on the Europeanization of civil society organizations (CSOs) with the literature on the contribution CSOs can make to democracy in the EU. To do so, it asks which are the pull factors that support CSOs’ Europeanization: are they mostly strategic and linked to where law-making and the money are? Or are they likewise linked to a desire to contribute to EU democracy? To explore this question, the article looks at agricultural, environmental and anti-poverty groups and combines fresh qualitative with quantitative data. The findings suggest that we need to distinguish strategic Europeanization, on the one hand, from the identification with supranational democracy, on the other. They also show that the most Europeanized organizations need not be the most interested in EU democracy, whereas organizations with a comparatively low degree of Europeanization can still be interested in EU democracy.     

The Institutional Interplay Regarding the New Architecture for the EC's External Assistance

Abstract:  The article concerns the inter-institutional relations and describes the dynamics between the main EC institutions in the decision-making process regarding the adoption of the new external action instruments. In 2004, the Commission had proposed a set of new external action instruments as base for the delivery of the Community's external assistance. By that time, the existing instruments amounted to more than 30 different legal instruments, which implicated a loss of efficiency in the management of the EC's external assistance. After 2 years of inter-institutional negotiations between the European Parliament, Council and the Commission, the new set of instruments was finally adopted. Compared to the initial Commission proposals, the design of the new instruments got significantly reshaped in the course of the inter-institutional decision-making procedure. In particular, the European Parliament had gained an unprecedented degree of power over the legislative framework for external spending.
Compared to the former range of geographic and thematic regulations, the new external action instruments fundamentally reform the delivery of external financial assistance with their streamlined and simplified structure. They consist of three horizontal instruments to respond to particular needs or crisis situation: an Instrument for Stability, an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Co-operation) and a European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. With regard to geographic coverage, four instruments will implement particular policies: the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument and the Instrument for Development Co-operation and an Instrument for Co-operation with Industrialised Countries.     

Omissions relevant to the contextual domains of technology transfer models

Ideographic representations (schematic drawings) are useful for analyzing and communicating complex ideas. They constitute simplified versions of the way multiple and diverse elements, concepts, and variables interact according to each author's conceptions, knowledge, and experience of planned change and change phenomena. Such representations depict a sense of order under a particular model configuration or system notion, involving contexts where action takes place and events occur. This paper is based on the commonality analysis of 46 models related to technology transfer. Within the framework of previously published research, complementary findings are presented here. The discussion is focused on the characteristics of the models' contexts, appealing to some technology transfer aspects widely omitted or neglected. It is suggested that the understanding of intervention contextual domains is important to formulate and implement better technology transfer models.     

STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977

The implementation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 in coal producing states is guided by a partial preemption policy approach t h a t establishes a balance between federal and state decision-making authority. The usefulness of this approach is assessed by analyzing state enforcement actions in relation the institutional capacity of states to shoulder regulatory responsibilities and the propensity of the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) t o oversee state enforcement actions and, if necessary, to undertake corrective action. Our results indicated that state administration of SMCRA was canstrained by the lack of effective federal oversight but was largely unaffected by interstate differences in political, economic, or administrative characteristics.