Search

Purpose — The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the ways in which the European Union (EU) is influencing policy making in EU member states. It covers the historical development of the UK, France and Germany. There is evidence to suggest politics and economic policy making in these countries are now similar particularly in the areas of adopting anti inflationist strategies and opening up markets. However, some differences remain particularly regarding the flexibility of labour markets in the various member states. Design/methodology/approach — The paper draws on the various components of integration theory and incorporates also a business history approach. Findings — The main findings indicate that the EU is gradually having more influence over member states, newer areas of development include social policy, immigration and an increasing neoliberalist approach towards opening new markets. However, countries are still given some flexibility, for example, there are still a number of countries not yet willing to join the Euro currency. Originality/value — The paper illustrates the important role of the EU in formulating policy for member states in today's increasingly competitive business environment Business needs to be fully aware of these implications in order to become more successful while operating in the expanding European market [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We model political competition as a contest between parties that represent constituents, and which announce policies in a two-dimensional policy space; the first dimension concerns the degree of redistribution, and the second, the race or immigration issue. Given the distribution of voter preferences on this space, a political equilibrium is determined. We study the effect that racist or anti-immigrant preferences in the polity have on equilibrium values of the redistributive policy. For the United States, there is a substantial reduction in distribution below what it counterfactually would have been, absent racism. For the UK, France, and Denmark, there are effects of the same sign, but with different magnitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article scrutinizes the widely held belief that British and French colonial models have influenced each country’s immigrant integration structures. It assesses the core assumptions underlying the argument: that British colonial and integration policies have relied on indirect rule of groups defined by race or ethnicity; and that corresponding French policies have emphasized direct rule and have been highly assimilationist. It demonstrates that the two countries are not as different as often portrayed. It also pinpoints the specific paths through which colonial legacies influenced integration policies, while rejecting the thesis that colonial institutions have broadly informed integration policies in Britain or France. The article thus challenges a series of received ideas, replacing them with a more precise assessment of the relations between the colonial past and the integration present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]