1,721,012 research outputs found
Debating the economic crisis in the European Parliament : Enriching the discourse
No full textChapter 6 explores how the European Parliament (EP) has addressed the issue of entrepreneurship. In contrast to the European Commission or the Council of the European Union, the EP is a more heterogeneous institution constituted by different political parties, committees, politicians and bureaucrats. By analysing parliamentary debates, the author demonstrates how the EP has used its policy-influencing instruments to act as a political entrepreneur and to define entrepreneurship in a broader sense. The debates on the Small Business Act and The European Private Company (EPC) Statute show that the EP has extended the discussion on entrepreneurship by introducing legal and social aspects which have led to innovative approaches to promoting the common good. In addition, the EP has been able to influence the decision-making process and enhance the open method of coordination.</p
EU public procurement policy during Covid-19 : A turning point for legitimate EU governance?
Full text linkPublic procurement is a policy area located between two contradictory tendencies. On the one hand, the European Commission strives for greater competition to widen procurement markets. On the other hand, the boosting of competition encounters resistance among the member states. This article investigates how these colliding tendencies played out during the initial stages of the Covid-19 crisis and, more specifically, how changes in the field of procurement affected legitimate governance in the EU. Based on institutionalist and EU governance theories, the study contributes to the literature with three principal findings. First, it demonstrates that the pandemic enabled exogenously driven changes in the field of public procurement with new policies and guidelines, while the EU’s overall aims in this field were upheld. Second, the study demonstrates that the Commission was the main driver of change and that it enhanced the harmonisation of procurement rules and supranational integration despite the crisis. Third, while these changes strengthened the role of supranational actors, the study demonstrates that the changes introduced allow member states increased flexibility when it comes to the implementation. In practice, however, this flexibility has the potential to undermine the EU’s initial aims, thereby jeopardising the EU’s legitimacy
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
The EU’s Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board [Elektronisk resurs] : better regulation or biased influence on legislation?
No full textThis study examines the role and impact of the European Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on the EU legislative process. The RSB was created in 2015 as an oversight body to assess the quality of draft impact assessments, fitness checks, and major evaluations within the Commission. While some studies have argued that the RSB contributes to better regulation, recent examples in EU decision-making (e.g., the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) cast doubts over its role and potential biases towards large industries. Therefore, this report analyses the RSB's role and potential influence and has two interlinked aims. First, to shed light on the RSB's inner activities, the report provides a literature review on the better regulation agenda and the development of the RSB, as well as an analysis of the RSB's activities from 2015 to 2022. Second, to scrutinise the RSB's potential influence on EU’s legislative decision-making, the report presents the main voices of critics towards the RSB in selected legislative examples. The overall aim is to shed light on the RSB’s role in the EU legislative process and explore to what extent its opinions may influence decision-makers in this process. Based on an analysis of the official RSB documents, a vast range of Commission’s documents, newspaper articles, reports by interest groups and NGOs, and seven elite interviews, the study provides four concrete policy recommendations for the RSB in EU's legislative process. First, the study argues that the better regulation agenda and the RSB toolbox should be evaluated again in light of the current high ambitions in the area of sustainability of the current Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. To ensure higher social and environmental standards, smarter than less regulation is often needed. Instead of having a narrowed focus on arithmetic principles like the regulatory offsetting (‘one-in, one-out’ approach), impact assessments should account for long-term impacts on society. Second, the study recommends that it is unnecessary to classify between positive versus negative opinions. Specifically, the study criticises the possibility of the RSB to issue second negative opinions as this tends to politicise the EU legislative process. Third, the study argues that the RSB’s de facto veto position should be abolished as second negative opinions tend to delay the legislative process, while enhancing polarisation among policy-makers. Fourth, the study recommends enhanced transparency and the facilitating access to RSB’s documents. The study suggests that the RSB promotes policy-making behind closed doors and lacks public accountability. Moreover, the structure and priorities of the RSB indeed imply that it potentially exerts a biased influence. The analysis of the RSB in this study demonstrates that external opinions are increasingly influencing the legislative process. The author calls for a rethinking of the current RSB and suggests considering alternatives to the Board. </p
The EU’s Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board : better regulation or biased influence on legislation?
No full textThis study examines the role and impact of the European Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on the EU legislative process. The RSB was created in 2015 as an oversight body to assess the quality of draft impact assessments, fitness checks, and major evaluations within the Commission. While some studies have argued that the RSB contributes to better regulation, recent examples in EU decision-making (e.g., the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) cast doubts over its role and potential biases towards large industries. Therefore, this report analyses the RSB's role and potential influence and has two interlinked aims. First, to shed light on the RSB's inner activities, the report provides a literature review on the better regulation agenda and the development of the RSB, as well as an analysis of the RSB's activities from 2015 to 2022. Second, to scrutinise the RSB's potential influence on EU’s legislative decision-making, the report presents the main voices of critics towards the RSB in selected legislative examples. The overall aim is to shed light on the RSB’s role in the EU legislative process and explore to what extent its opinions may influence decision-makers in this process. Based on an analysis of the official RSB documents, a vast range of Commission’s documents, newspaper articles, reports by interest groups and NGOs, and seven elite interviews, the study provides four concrete policy recommendations for the RSB in EU's legislative process. First, the study argues that the better regulation agenda and the RSB toolbox should be evaluated again in light of the current high ambitions in the area of sustainability of the current Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. To ensure higher social and environmental standards, smarter than less regulation is often needed. Instead of having a narrowed focus on arithmetic principles like the regulatory offsetting (‘one-in, one-out’ approach), impact assessments should account for long-term impacts on society. Second, the study recommends that it is unnecessary to classify between positive versus negative opinions. Specifically, the study criticises the possibility of the RSB to issue second negative opinions as this tends to politicise the EU legislative process. Third, the study argues that the RSB’s de facto veto position should be abolished as second negative opinions tend to delay the legislative process, while enhancing polarisation among policy-makers. Fourth, the study recommends enhanced transparency and the facilitating access to RSB’s documents. The study suggests that the RSB promotes policy-making behind closed doors and lacks public accountability. Moreover, the structure and priorities of the RSB indeed imply that it potentially exerts a biased influence. The analysis of the RSB in this study demonstrates that external opinions are increasingly influencing the legislative process. The author calls for a rethinking of the current RSB and suggests considering alternatives to the Board. </p
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
The EU’s Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board: Better regulation or biased influence on legislation?
No full textThis study examines the role and impact of the European Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on the EU legislative process. The RSB was created in 2015 as an oversight body to assess the quality of draft impact assessments, fitness checks, and major evaluations within the Commission. While some studies have argued that the RSB contributes to better regulation, recent examples in EU decision-making (e.g., the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) cast doubts over its role and potential biases towards large industries. Therefore, this report analyses the RSB's role and potential influence and has two interlinked aims. First, to shed light on the RSB's inner activities, the report provides a literature review on the better regulation agenda and the development of the RSB, as well as an analysis of the RSB's activities from 2015 to 2022. Second, to scrutinise the RSB's potential influence on EU’s legislative decision-making, the report presents the main voices of critics towards the RSB in selected legislative examples. The overall aim is to shed light on the RSB’s role in the EU legislative process and explore to what extent its opinions may influence decision-makers in this process. Based on an analysis of the official RSB documents, a vast range of Commission’s documents, newspaper articles, reports by interest groups and NGOs, and seven elite interviews, the study provides four concrete policy recommendations for the RSB in EU's legislative process. First, the study argues that the better regulation agenda and the RSB toolbox should be evaluated again in light of the current high ambitions in the area of sustainability of the current Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. To ensure higher social and environmental standards, smarter than less regulation is often needed. Instead of having a narrowed focus on arithmetic principles like the regulatory offsetting (‘one-in, one-out’ approach), impact assessments should account for long-term impacts on society. Second, the study recommends that it is unnecessary to classify between positive versus negative opinions. Specifically, the study criticises the possibility of the RSB to issue second negative opinions as this tends to politicise the EU legislative process. Third, the study argues that the RSB’s de facto veto position should be abolished as second negative opinions tend to delay the legislative process, while enhancing polarisation among policy-makers. Fourth, the study recommends enhanced transparency and the facilitating access to RSB’s documents. The study suggests that the RSB promotes policy-making behind closed doors and lacks public accountability. Moreover, the structure and priorities of the RSB indeed imply that it potentially exerts a biased influence. The analysis of the RSB in this study demonstrates that external opinions are increasingly influencing the legislative process. The author calls for a rethinking of the current RSB and suggests considering alternatives to the Board.
- …
