Layers of powers: societies and institutions in Europe

Historians and social scientists have offered many and varied definitions of the term “community”. This chapter focuses on specific examples of face-to-face or local communities in order to test the possibilities and limits of the two major analytical approaches to communities: an anthropological approach which identifies ‘community’ as an organic entity, and a symbolic one which considers feelings of belonging and self-identification as constitutive aspects of a community. In this quest, close attention is paid to the question of the stabilization of community’s structures through legislation and institutions, a process that integrates such micro-societies into broader networks of power, and renders them visible to historians. In the first section we examine what we have called a “world of communities”, from periods when communities constituted the dominant element of social structure. Examining ancient Jewish and medieval Icelandic communities, and then early modern Irish and Scottish clans, we try to identify their basic characteristics and to reconstruct the way they related to the rest of the social structure. The second section analyzes the emergence of new loyalties and models of social membership from the 19th century onwards, emphasizing how the discourse on communities played a crucial role in the construction of these diverse patterns of identification and differentiation. Finally, we explore the permanence of the communitarian world supposedly replaced by nationalism and other major modern ideologies along with the new meanings and uses of communities in the 20th and 21st centuries. In sum, this broad overview provides a preliminary narrative of the changes in the structures of communities and their shifting position within wider patterns of social organizations while drawing attention to parallel transformations in theoretical reflection on communities

Conflict Resolution in the European Neighbourhood: The Role of the EU as a Framework and as an Actor

The European Union's neighbourhood is rife with secessionist conflicts. The Union's proximity and its magnetic power of attraction has created the potential for a constructive European involvement in these regions. An EU role can be two-fold. First, the EU framework of governance, law and policy can offer a conducive context for the settlement of ethno-political conflicts. Second, the Union can act in its neighbouring regions to generate incentives for the settlement and ultimate resolution of conflict. But to what extent can the Union export its forms of governance in a manner that can contribute to the amelioration and resolution of conflict? What instead are the mechanisms and their limits through which EU actions or inactions could alter the incentive structure underpinning conflict? This article attempts to shed light on the above questions.Europeanization

The Trouble with Identity and Progressive Origins in Defending Labour Law

Debate about labour regulation is not new. What is new is the urgency with which labour law reform is promoted as an important fix to economic woes. In recent years, calls for reform resound in poor and rich countries alike. The economic crisis in the United States and in Europe has intensified these debates, making labour regulation a prime target for reform. In several US states public sector unions have been under attack, depicted as a privileged class that drains public funds with high wages, cosy benefits, and retirement privileges that no other workers enjoy. Several European countries have introduced austerity measures that target labour regulation and other foundations of the welfare state as sources of economic waste that they can no longer afford. Moreover, it is argued that “rigid” labour regulation hampers job creation, which can be strengthened through a program of labour flexibilisation

Is European Inter Regionalism a Relevant Approach for the World or Just for Europe? Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 7 No. 14 September 2007

[Introduction]. Most of the literature on inter regionalism seems to accept that, as a region, the European Union (EU) stimulates interregional cooperation in such a way that it may be responsible for adding a new category of relevant actors to world politics. This development is usually viewed by academics, mostly Europeans, positively, as a situation born from the affirmation of a European “soft power” vis-à-vis other alternatives of world order. Additionally, it is often assumed that the successful integration model of the EU is responsible for creating the conditions for emulation in other regional integration projects elsewhere, and implicitly that it could be the cornerstone of future world order. This paper explores this argument in order to provide a more accurate reading of European actions in the international landscape. Our starting point is the fact that the characteristics of the power that a nation state, or a group of nations such as the EU, exercises can be extrapolated from its internal make-up but should not be divorced from its actual behavior in the international arena. So far the behavior of the EU in that arena has been patterned along traditional lines of behavior of aspiring powers within historical settings dominated by a nation who faces problems in maintaining its hegemony. Thus, we argue that most of the literature on European “soft power” exceptionality is based on a reading of the EU internal make-up that is not paying attention to its actual behavior in the international arena. We accept that internal factors weigh on the foreign policy decisions made by a nation state or a group of nations, but also that the feeling of exceptionality – that a nation or group can develop because of its internal make-up – does not necessarily “spill over” to its international relations. So, we are going to test the proposition that, in order to protect its exceptionality, a nation state or group of nations applies different mechanisms to its international dealings, but those mechanisms are not different from the ones employed in similar international situations by nation states whose internal make-ups differ. In other words, the participation of a group of nations in the world order does not translate into a different behavior than that of previously isolated nation states, exemplified by the realist proposition that nation states and groups of nations still “value survival above all else.” And, in the case of the EU, this implies the survival of an internal make-up that has been successful for its members. As a consequence, inter regionalism can be seen as a European centered approach aimed at defending the permanence of the gains achieved by means of regional integration, but with little relevance in the medium and long term for a more democratic or more meaningful world order for developing nations. This paper contends that hegemony and emulation are just two faces of the power exercised by an actor within the international system. When a nation or group of nations has enough power to do so, it imposes its hegemony. When it does not have enough power, especially enough power to compete with an existing hegemon1 -- or it is unwilling to do so-- it would tend to emphasize other elements (its value system, for example) as an emulation horizon for other nations. Both behaviors translate into active foreign policies toward the rest of the world, and activism in foreign policy almost always is born out of the need to defend itself. In the case of the EU, its behavior towards Eastern European countries is that of a hegemon, according to the definition of hegemony in “Theorizing Regional Integration and Inter-Regional Relations (2)” (2006) – the EU establishes the goals, monitors the course of action, and supports the instruments required to carry out the undertakings agreed upon.(3) However, beyond Eastern Europe and Turkey, the EU lacks the power to impose its hegemony and is limited to resorting to an alleged “soft power” deal –i.e., inter regionalism. In the first section of this paper, we provide historical examples of the U.S., a nation state which has employed both hegemony and emulation as defense mechanisms at different stages in its history. This will demonstrate that, though much is made out of the European Union emulation, it is a mechanism to assert economic and political power that has been used before by individual nation states. And, in the second section, we discuss aspects of EU foreign policy towards developing nations that, when taken together, suggest that the adding of new relevant actors to world order by way of inter regionalism may help create a new balance of power under European tutelage, but this balance will not necessarily lead to a more democratic or lasting world order

Continuing Concentration in Food Industries Globally: Strategic Challenges to an Unstable Status Quo

Industrial Organization,

A cosmopolitan temptation

For some, the transnationalization of political action and communicative space in the European Union heralds an emergent cosmopolitan order. Need that be so? There are supranational institutions in the EU as well as transnational political and cultural spaces and cross-border communicative flows. However, the Union's member states remain key controllers of citizenship rights and purveyors of collective identities. And for many purposes they still maintain strongly bounded national public spheres. Because the EU's overall character as a polity remains unresolved, this has consequences for the organization of communicative spaces. The EU is a field of tensions and contradictions that is inescapably rooted in institutional realities. Wishful thinking about cosmopolitanism can get in the way of clear analysis

Greek Port Cities in Transition: Regeneration Strategies, Waterfront Development and the Role of Cultural and Tourist Resources

Greek port cities find themselves in a profound and encompassing change as they try to improve their image and confront the competition for advanced port services and facilities and the need for urban revitalization. As port functions are increasingly relocated towards the outskirts of port cities, disadvantaged neighbourhoods and docks are turned into modern housing and commercial areas or cultural quarters that reinforce the identity, the appeal and the competitiveness of the city. Policies and practices that consider the regeneration of derelict areas and seafronts are at the top of local agendas with culture and leisure resources (cultural infrastructure, mega-events, tourist facilities, etc.) holding the key role. The main goal is the creation of new city images and environments that are attractive for residents, investors and visitors. Hence, these new policies have various spatial and economic effects, leading to prestigious waterfront developments, cultural clustering (e.g., Wit de Wittestraat in Rotterdam, Ladadika in Thessaloniki), increase of tourism, etc. On the other hand, regeneration projects affect the traditional spatial urban hierarchies and often lead to the displacement of activities and residents. So the main issue is how port cities can avoid the negative effects and in which way these strategies affect the economic and portal services. The paper intends to present the most important policy changes of the major Greek port cities and to evaluate the role of culture and leisure within these policies. Characteristic examples of European port cities redevelopments based on culture, such as the ones of Bilbao, Rotterdam and Hamburg, will be compared to the efforts of Greek port cities. Special emphasis will be given to the Cultural Capital of Europe event that has had a great impact on Thessaloniki (1997) and is expected to have a long term effect on Patras (2006). The main research questions that are being addressed are the following: Which are the spatial, economic, social and environmental effects of the new port city strategies and which role do the cultural resources hold? Is an effective cultural and leisure policy a panacea for port cities in order to adjust to the contemporary competition? How are Greek port cities responding to these new circumstances?

The CEPS Plan for the Balkans

In 1999, CEPS initiated the Europa South-East Policy Forum, a group of leading independent policy institutes from every country of South-East Europe, the network of Open Society Institutes. The objective was to contribute to the full integration of the whole of the region into the European Union. This report advocates accelerated political and economic reforms in these countries in the aftermath of the war, on the assumption that the European Union itself would make radical moves in its policies to support the process