Search

In the light of the outcome of the 23rd June 2016 UK referendum to leave the European Union and the May government’s consequent approach to Brexit, this paper explores the likely changes that these will bring to a key EU-UK relationship, the competition policy relationship. It is suggested that changes are likely not only in public enforcement and private actions but also in the need for a new competition cooperation architecture between the EU and the UK. In order to appreciate how the competition relationship is likely to change after Brexit, an understanding of the current architecture in respect of the said areas is necessary and thus outlined early in the paper. Thereafter, it is argued that, post the implementation period, as the UK will no longer come under the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice or indeed be a member of the Single European Market, a considerable loosening or separation of the strands that shape the current EU-UK competition relationship will occur. This unwinding of the currently intertwined EU and UK competition regimes will affect both public enforcement and private actions, thereby opening up the possibility of further regulatory divergence, unless consciously checked. Moreover, as the separation will see the Commission’s jurisdictional remit no longer include the UK, the domain will become the sole regulatory concern of UK institutions, particularly the Competition and Markets Authority. This will lead to dual regulatory capture, often of significant and complex antitrust and merger cases, given the overlapping nature of EU and UK markets. Clearly, this necessitates the UK regulator having the appropriate staffing to vet such cases, as it moves from essentially a regional player to one on a par with the Commission and regulators in the USA and China. In fact, the dual capture of such cases reinforces the importance of effective cooperation between the EU and UK regulators. However, given that the current competition cooperation relationship will end at the conclusion of the implementation period, the paper articulates a likely new EU-UK competition cooperation architecture, reflecting the fact that the UK would be outside the EU, but still enabling close, effective cooperation. Of course, and echoing the EU, it is also in the UK’s interest to agree similar competition cooperation bilaterals with key non-EU regulators. Yet, because this will take time, and because cooperation can indeed fail, the UK, like the EU, must ensure its competition instruments have the necessary extra-territorial reach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes a new perspective for higher education policy research. It introduces the concept of policy object to designate the discrete preoccupation(s) of a policy text (e.g. a new governance regime, a quality system, or new degrees) and suggests that actor conceptualisations of the policy object intersect with other elements in the policy process to shape enactment and outcomes. First, the policy object concept is described. It is argued that the policy object does not have an objective existence and two concepts are proposed to explain it: ontology and enacted ontology. The former refers to what actors believe the policy object is, a socially-construed context-determined conceptualisation, whereas enacted ontology refers to what the policy object becomes further to enactment under the influence of ontology. Second, the paper presents the findings of a comparative study of master degrees further to the Bologna process in different national and institutional settings to illustrate the policy object approach. This research puts forward arguments to suggest that the policy object could be an important variable to consider in policy research. This somewhat different lens, inviting fine-grained attention to a specific policy object (its ontologies and enacted ontologies), could bring additional insight into policy outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk-based regulation is a relatively new mode of governance. Not only does it offer a way of controlling institutions from the outside but it also provides the possibility of making an organisation's achievements visible/visualisable. This paper comments on a list of possible risks that higher education institutions have to face. In a second step, it is discussed that a higher education institution changes when a framework of risk-based regulation is adopted. The paper then illustrates how governance changes when the risk-based regulation approach is transferred from a UK context to an overall European one with differing traditions of higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper provides a one-page visual summary of the previously published relative survival estimates for 42 types of cancers in 23 countries in Europe.Methods: The cancer patients in these analyses were 15 years or older at the time of their diagnosis in the period 1995-1999. Follow-up was to the end of 2003 and relative survival estimates were computed by the cohort method.Results: The analysis of 1-year survival had good discriminatory power and visibly separated a group of countries with consistently high survival estimates (Switzerland, France, Sweden, Belgium and Italy) and another group of countries with lower estimates (Poland, Czech Republic, Ireland, Denmark and United Kingdom-Northern Ireland). After the first year, there was less variation between the countries.Conclusion: To more fully understand the UK situation, a rational comparison would select countries with data-quality, prosperity and healthcare systems that are similar to the United Kingdom. In otherwise comparable populations, a pronounced difference in 1-year survival is most likely to be due to variation in a strong prognostic factor, which exerts its effect in the short term. A likely explanation for the short-term survival deficit in the United Kingdom compared with the Nordic countries is a less favourable stage distribution in the United Kingdom. However, the present superficial analysis does not exclude possible functions for other factors relating to the organisation and quality of cancer care services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding emerging trends in public perceptions of nanomaterials is critically important for those who regulate risks. A number of surveys have explored public perceptions of their risks and benefits. In this paper we meta-analyse these surveys to assess the extent to which the following four hypotheses derived from previous studies of new technologies might be said to be valid for nanotechnologies: risk aversion will prevail over benefit appreciation; an increase in knowledge will not result in reduced aversion to risks; judgements will be malleable and subject to persuasion given risk-centric information; and contextual, psychometric and attitudinal predictors of perceived risk from prior studies can help anticipate future perceptions of nanotechnologies. We find that half the public has at least some familiarity with nanotechnology, and those who perceive greater benefits outnumber those who perceive greater risks by 3 to 1. However, a large minority of those surveyed (44%) is unsure, suggesting that risk judgements are highly malleable. Nanotechnology risk perceptions also appear to contradict some long-standing findings. In particular, unfamiliarity with nanotechnology is, contrary to expectations, not strongly associated with risk aversion and reduced ‘knowledge deficits’ are correlated with positive perceptions in this early and controversy-free period. Psychometric variables, trust and affect continue to drive risk perceptions in this new context, although the influence of both trust and affect is mediated, even reversed, by demographic and cultural variables. Given the potential malleability of perceptions, novel methods for understanding future public responses to nanotechnologies will need to be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The excessive bureaucracy and complexity of the Horizon calls appears to be an obstacle to research cooperation in Europe. Funding agencies of the European Union emphasize competitiveness, but do not recognize that publishing scientific papers increases competitiveness. Even the distribution of funds appears very far from recognizing the proper value of scientific publications. In this context, I am not surprised that some (not all) UK researchers have no confidence in European cooperative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many countries have introduced evaluations of university research, reflecting global demands for greater accountability. This paper compares methods of evaluation used across twelve countries in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. On the basis of this comparison, and focusing in particular on Britain, we examine the advantages and disadvantages of performance-based funding in comparison with other approaches to funding. Our analysis suggests that, while initial benefits may outweigh the costs, over time such a system seems to produce diminishing returns. This raises important questions about its continued use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Interdisciplinary collaboration and communication during dental training has become an increasingly influential idea within dental schools, both in the United Kingdom and European contexts. Research into this curriculum innovation has provided evidence to argue that benefits accrue both in terms of professional understanding and the development of dental professional learning dispositions.Objective This study investigates the interactions within a trainee dental team. In particular, the paper reports the professional experiences and development of trainee dental technicians and undergraduate dental students during a prolonged shared learning exercise in a combined UK university dental school and hospital.Methods Using a qualitative approach with a phenomenological framework, data sources included reflective diaries, focus group interviews and participant feedback.Results Eleven major domains were identified that accurately characterised the participants' beliefs, thoughts and practices. The results indicate that both trainee dental technicians and undergraduate dental students were pragmatic but positive in terms of their expectations of shared learning. In particular, they regarded the exercise as useful in terms of communication and understanding each other's role. Evidence also indicated the presence of original elements such as crisis of confidence and feelings of awkwardness that do not arise in other studies.Conclusions The implications for dental education are that for effective professional collaboration during training to take place a merger of interests among educators and policy developers in dental education must occur, and the challenges encountered within practice cultures must somehow be overcome. Therefore, more investment in evaluating research into interprofessional learning in dentistry would contribute to our knowledge about the place and role of interprofessional education in the professional dental curriculum and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]