Delegation in inconsistency: the Lisbon strategy record as an institutional failure

In this paper, we develop an analysis of the reasons for the apparent failure of the “Lisbon strategy” (2000) so far. After having made the general case for a comprehensive “institutionalist perspective” on the European economy, we first try to formalise the objectives of “Lisbon” in order to present a mid-term review of the results attained. Since we find, like many others, that too little has been achieved, we then offer some possible explanations. Apart from an inconsistency problem between the different objectives set, we argue that the major reason for this failure appears to lie in the contradiction between the EU macroeconomic policy framework, based on the logic of delegation of power and control to independent authorities with conservative objectives, and the proactive policies required by the “Lisbon strategy”, which objectives the EU member states eventually find themselves accountable for (not) achieving individually.European Union, “Lisbon strategy”, Institutions, Delegation, Inconsistency, Macroeconomic policy, Structural Reform

The structural transition of the production system: Regional policy in common understanding

Several scientists, politicians are perceiving a fundamental shift in the structure of the production process and the political regulation-system governing that process. Others claim that there?s nothing worth mentioning about this rage, and posit the continuation of long known cyclical and secular trends. There is a general lack of common understanding and accurate definition in the debate among and between politicians and academics. Neither the concept of ?globalisation? nor that of ?regionalisation? seems to be an accurate ?description? nor an ?explanation? of the structural transformations of the European economy. Yet these vague nominations do have real implications for the perception and situation-definition of the mass and their leaders. Using theoretical tools as the ?Rule of Anticipated Reactions?, ?Hidden Faces of Power?, ?non-decision-making? etc., the proposition is that the ?invisible hands? of market-law and (supra-)state policies have altered the bargaining positions of ?states? and organisations favouring business. The debate about the ?retreat? or ?withering away? of the state, vs. scientists pleading to ?bring the state back in? the analysis, is noticeable in most countries. But the ?objective data? used is unsuitable: they cannot measure accurately the transition under research. The current discussion cannot reveal the importance of the concept of ?structural power? in social relationships: the shifting balance of power between states and markets and between labour and capital. Because of the current division of social sciences, individual disciplines cannot capture thoroughly the transition of the economic system. This transition consists of the shift away from a ?Fordist Regulation? towards ?Something Else?. This transition has farreaching consequences for the neo-corporatist organisation of the ?European? economies and the underlying social differentiation. It is endangering the necessary social cohesion and hindering the supple functioning of the labour market. The classic ?European? Keynesian Welfare State, is undergoing strong incentives, perhaps dictates, towards drastic adjustment. The conditions imposed by mobile capital, both financial and productive, are narrowing the policy-options of national and regional governments: the decrease of difference. At least, this is what is proclaimed in popular discours, in contrast to different findings of scientific research. The modern version of ?beggar-they-neighbour?, the competitive provision of investment-incentives, the involuntarily condescending attitude towards the captains of industry ... are disciplining the labour-force and leading to unemployment and poverty. Because of the delegation of important parts of the socio-economical policy-domains towards the regional government, these too are forced to play the game. Intra-Union and even intra-state social dumping, sometimes for the sake of the European subsidy-policy, are complicating an ?regional understanding?. How can the regions answer this common threat without resulting in a ?mutually assured destruction?? How can they counter these ?structural adjustment plans? without a suitable adequate institutional apparatus on the Union level? What is known in political geography as the ?jumping of scales? is changing the relationship between different policy-levels. The ?regional question? at the turn of the Century is a difficult one: how can the regions defy the obligations of the global production system without rendering a community of regions impossible before it is constructed.

The Pandemic of Argumentation

This open access book addresses communicative aspects of the current COVID-19 pandemic as well as the epidemic of misinformation from the perspective of argumentation theory. Argumentation theory is uniquely placed to understand and account for the challenges of public reason as expressed through argumentative discourse. The book thus focuses on the extent to which the forms, norms and functions of public argumentation have changed in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. This question is investigated along the three main research lines of the COST Action project CA 17132: European network for Argumentation and Public PoLicY analysis (APPLY): descriptive, normative, and prescriptive. The volume offers a broad range of contributions which treat argumentative phenomena that are directly related to the changes in public discourse in the wake of the outburst of COVID-19. The volume additionally places particular emphasis on expert argumentation, given (i) the importance expert discourse has had over the last two years, and (ii) the challenges that expert argumentation has faced in the public sphere as a result of scientific uncertainty and widespread misinformation. Contributions are divided into three groups, which (i) examine various features and aspects of public and institutional discourse about the COVID-19 pandemic, (ii) scrutinize the way health policies have been discussed, debated, attacked and defended in the public sphere, and (iii) consider a range of proposals meant to improve the quality of public discourse, and public deliberation in particular, in such a way that concrete proposals for argumentative literacy will be brought to light. Overall, this volume constitutes a timely inquiry into all things argumentative in pandemic discourse. This volume is of interest to a broad readership including philosophers, linguists, communication and legal scholars, and members of the wider public who seek to better understand the discourse surrounding communicative phenomena in times of crisis. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a funding organisation for research and innovation networks. For more information: www.cost.e

Current and Future Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Knowledge Representation and Reasoning is a central, longstanding, and active area of Artificial Intelligence. Over the years it has evolved significantly; more recently it has been challenged and complemented by research in areas such as machine learning and reasoning under uncertainty. In July 2022 a Dagstuhl Perspectives workshop was held on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The goal of the workshop was to describe the state of the art in the field, including its relation with other areas, its shortcomings and strengths, together with recommendations for future progress. We developed this manifesto based on the presentations, panels, working groups, and discussions that took place at the Dagstuhl Workshop. It is a declaration of our views on Knowledge Representation: its origins, goals, milestones, and current foci; its relation to other disciplines, especially to Artificial Intelligence; and on its challenges, along with key priorities for the next decade

The Pandemic of Argumentation

This open access book addresses communicative aspects of the current COVID-19 pandemic as well as the epidemic of misinformation from the perspective of argumentation theory. Argumentation theory is uniquely placed to understand and account for the challenges of public reason as expressed through argumentative discourse. The book thus focuses on the extent to which the forms, norms and functions of public argumentation have changed in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. This question is investigated along the three main research lines of the COST Action project CA 17132: European network for Argumentation and Public PoLicY analysis (APPLY): descriptive, normative, and prescriptive. The volume offers a broad range of contributions which treat argumentative phenomena that are directly related to the changes in public discourse in the wake of the outburst of COVID-19. The volume additionally places particular emphasis on expert argumentation, given (i) the importance expert discourse has had over the last two years, and (ii) the challenges that expert argumentation has faced in the public sphere as a result of scientific uncertainty and widespread misinformation. Contributions are divided into three groups, which (i) examine various features and aspects of public and institutional discourse about the COVID-19 pandemic, (ii) scrutinize the way health policies have been discussed, debated, attacked and defended in the public sphere, and (iii) consider a range of proposals meant to improve the quality of public discourse, and public deliberation in particular, in such a way that concrete proposals for argumentative literacy will be brought to light. Overall, this volume constitutes a timely inquiry into all things argumentative in pandemic discourse. This volume is of interest to a broad readership including philosophers, linguists, communication and legal scholars, and members of the wider public who seek to better understand the discourse surrounding communicative phenomena in times of crisis. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a funding organisation for research and innovation networks. For more information: www.cost.e

The Shady Persecution of Doping: Performance Enhancement Drugs and Meaning in Sport

This project deals with the debate around performance enhancement drugs, utilizing a philosophical approach to meaning in sport to shed light on the topic

The EU as a foreign policy actor - should human rights really be promoted in China?

La UE promou les seves normes i principis com els drets humans a tercers països també. en aquest document conceptualitza la UE en el seu poder normatiu i presenta la seva política de drets humans i alguns interpretacions alternatives dels drets humans. La qüestió de si, i en el qual el preu de la UE ha de promoure els drets humans a la Xina, tenint en compte diversos punts de conflicte i si es pot complir amb el seu paper d'un poder normatiu a la llum de diferents restriccions s'examinen. Finalment, és analitza el que això implica per a la realització limitada demanda original de la UE i el que un optimitzat. política de drets humans pot sembla

Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law:the second decade

The first issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on nine significant papers drawn from the Journal’s second decade. Four of the papers relate to reasoning with legal cases, introducing contextual considerations, predicting outcomes on the basis of natural language descriptions of the cases, comparing different ways of representing cases, and formalising precedential reasoning. One introduces a method of analysing arguments that was to become very widely used in AI and Law, namely argumentation schemes. Two relate to ontologies for the representation of legal concepts and two take advantage of the increasing availability of legal corpora in this decade, to automate document summarisation and for the mining of arguments