Our very best writers will produce any essay or term paper you are looking for! We offer reasonable prices and deliver top quality papers on virtually any topic. Our service is available 24/7. Be sure that we are reliable and consistent.
Western European Politics
17/03/00
Assess the arguments for and against a ‘Europe of the regions’
A ‘Europe of the Regions’ seems to be a phrase, which encourages the dissolution of states in favour of smaller regional identities. A region can be defined by four criteria: a region does not have a limited size; it displays homogeneity in terms of specific criteria; it may also be distinguished from bordering areas by a particular kind of association of related features; and it should possess some kind of internal cohesion.
Since the passage of the Single European Act: “the goal of economic and social cohesion has become a central part of the debate on the prospect for an impact of economic integration and monetary union on member states and regions in the European Community.” The definition of cohesion, in the Single European Act, is the attenuation of the disparities between the well off regions and the least favoured ones. Some member states have shown more interest and have provided more freedom to regions than others. The importance and the autonomy of regions have been significantly increasing over the years. This implies that all regions in Europe are facing the need for adjustment and for instance they must develop their own response shaped by their social context. Therefore in response to the development of regional dimension of Community affairs, the Commission in 1988 decided to establish the Consultative Council of Regional Development.
Because of the sudden significance of regions, many sub-national levels of government have formed direct lines of communication with decision-making in Brussels. There are definite positive assets in a ‘Europe of regions’. However there are also lots of disadvantages for some regions. In this essay, I will be discussing the arguments for and against a ‘Europe of regions’.
There are a lot of positive aspects of a ‘Europe of regions’; here are some examples of such.
All regions are looking for competitive advantage. The most important factor for the latter is innovation. Therefore regions and the European institutions are now working together with national government to promote regional growth. Indeed there is a strong need for adjustment because of the new global conditions: no regions have been totally immuned to the pressure of global competition. The increase in globalisation of markets has changed the environment of the European companies, making them face intensive price, time and quality competition abroad but also at home.
To stay competitive regions have to innovate. This concept is used in connection with the analysis of processes of technological change. Once can state three different stages in technological change: invention, innovation and diffusion. “Invention is defined as the stage of production of new knowledge; innovation as the first application of the existing knowledge to production; and diffusion as the broadening use of new technologies.” An innovation system is therefore a social system. For instance they are the results of social interactions between economic actors. Hence it is an open system, which interacts with its environment.
It is technological progress, which initiates the process of economic growth. Technological progress usually reflects an improvement in the quality of capital goods and the efficiency with which inputs are combined. Technological advance includes not merely new production techniques but also new managerial methods and new forms of business organisation. It is generally linked with the discovery of new knowledge, which permits firms to combine a specific amount of resources in new ways to achieve a greater output. It is also important to mention that technological advance and capital formation are closely related; technological advance often requires investment in new machinery and equipment.
The European Commission seeks to maximize the innovation potential of firms in its leading technology: “the general move towards reflexivity and indigenous growth on the regional level has been further accelerated by the process of the European integration since the mid-1980s.”
The 1988 reform of the ‘Structural Funds’ helped the less developed regions of the Community by providing them new stimulus and additional support. While by the Single Act and the 1992 programme regulatory competition for direct investment was increased and incentives for interregional co-operation was provided for the better off regions. The new structural funds aim not only for redistribution of financial resources, but also for a “management of regional policy to enable regions themselves to take charge of economic development.” This results in a multiplier effect: more European money is aimed at specific areas, but the regions themselves are now spending more money on development. Economic growth is then generated. Some of the leading regions have shown a high annual growth rate and low unemployment with new regional industrial policies, particularly with regard to enterprise support for small and medium sized firms.
One of the other advantages of regionalized industrial policy is that they are more sensitised to and sensitive of the needs of regional firms. The money going into a member state’s region must be additional to the flow of national public spending into the region. The latter argument favours a ‘Europe of regions’. Regions try to attract both foreign and domestic investors to speed up the land use and to spur higher education, training and specialization. Labour specialization eliminates the loss of time, which accompanies each shift of a worker from one task to another. Managerial specialization means a better use of large-scale production. It is largely desirable because it results in more efficient production. The underdeveloped areas have a need to improve their comparative advantage versus the industrial areas. This process is done through industrialization. Comparative advantage is a lower relative or comparative cost than another producer.
“In this radically reshaped European Union, the sense of regional identity will be a healthy counter balance to the decision-making by Ministers which member states Governments will undertake at the level of the Union itself.”
National government policies aim at providing incentives to invest. Indeed attracting investment and capital flow from abroad, raising the skill level of the working force, protecting infant industries, and creating a positive climate for industries that wish to settle in a certain area. Those industries spur the economy of the region by creating employment.
Growth is concentrated by geographic area such as urbanised, metropolitan areas and the same applies to underdevelopment. In rural areas, urbanisation is low and there is a particular lack of economic infrastructure and of factors of production. There is a clear desequilibrium between rural and urban areas. Indeed industries look for low production cost, which they will find in urban areas. Consequently, the less favoured regions raise their production cost because they can’t allow themselves to reduce it because of economic reasons. Lower tariffs barriers then introduce increased competition; where increased pressure is applied on the depressed regions due to the lack of economies of scales. They are reductions in the average total cost of producing a product as the firm expands of its output in the long run or in simple words the economies of mass production (see table 1 & 2).
Government policies should create industries capable of mobilising a workforce from the surroundings, raising the standards of living and stimulating local entrepreneurship in the underdeveloped regions. There seems to be a clear point that the success of the better off regions is paid for by the reduction in the potential for development of the others. It is also important to mention that market forces do not bring about an equal distribution in the remuneration of production factors or of incomes.
Another problem is specialization: “ the use of the resources of an individual, a firm, a region, or a nation to produce one or a few goods and services.” In addition, specialization can also bring structural unemployment: a mismatch between their skills and the skills required by employers who are hiring workers. Structural unemployment occurs because the consumer’s demand changes over time. It is impossible to sometimes predict the consumer’s demand and it often results in structural unemployment.
Another negative aspect of a ‘Europe of regions’ is that the population moves where employment is. There is a geographical relocation. The population is deserting the less favoured regions and this results in killing economically the regions. They move to the developed regions to the detriment of others.
One should not forget to state that the indirect assault on non tariff barriers to intra European Union trade means that national and regional: “are now in competition to provide the best environment for the production and export of goods and services.” This implies that the developed regions will cut production cost and therefore attract more industries than the less favoured ones. Once again it will increase the gap between the two. A non-tariff barrier is a licensing requirement, unreasonable standards pertaining to product quality and safety, or unnecessary bureaucratic red tape, which is used to restrict imports. The European countries frequently call for their domestic importers of foreign goods to obtain licenses. By restricting the insurance of the licences, the imports can be restricted.
There is, as well, a differential degree of regional autonomy. For instance, federal states send Ministers from the regions to meetings of the Council of Ministers, whereas at the other end, regions in centralised states are largely lacking some regional authorities where they struggle to define and represent their own interests.
After assessing the arguments for and against a ‘Europe of regions’, one can become conscious of the fact that the European Commission is not in a position itself to judge the developments needs of peripheral regions. However national governments still have a major say in designating the regional actors that can participate. The policy process now includes representatives from the levels concerned with the substance of decision-making.
The trend is going towards a ‘Europe of the regions’: “The dynamics of regulatory competition and the demands of lobbying have led regions to establish independent agencies or private law firms that have the task of ensuring the co-ordination of domestic and external investment efforts.”
Despite the fact that there is a clear desequilibrium between the developments of the regions; there are some advantages in giving more independence to regions. Apart from the definite uneven development, which is caused by market forces, the single market project involved many new projects strongly impacting upon territorial authorities.
A ‘Europe of the regions’ could work if only they focused on the less developed regions. If the gap between developed regions and poor regions diminishes, then economically everyone will be better off.
Bibliography
· Cook et al.; Developments in West European Politics; edited by Rodhes, Heywood, and Wright; McMillan Press LTD; 1997
· Greenwood, Justin; Representing Interests in the European Union; Macmillan, 1997
· Leonardi, Robert; ‘Cohesion in the European Community: Illusion or Reality’; West European Politics; vol.16, no.4; 1993
Our very best writers will produce any essay or term paper you are looking for! We offer reasonable prices and deliver top quality papers on virtually any topic. Our service is available 24/7. Be sure that we are reliable and consistent.
If one is to discuss and problem solve an issue, he or she must first know what the issue is truly about. Affirmative action is defined as the equal opportunities given to women, minorities, and small groups so they will have the same tools, education, and allotment to achieve their goals in life. Since affirmative action came about, debate arises daily about if it is truly equal and fair. Was it a word made as a cushion to the people so they will feel equal? Another interpretation is did this word actually make the white male group less important and unequal to the minority group, doing more harm to others than good. Affirmative action is not used unequally in the world, but in actuality if it was not for it these people would have nothing. Julie A. Mertus supports the need for opportunities given to women in the work force. In the work force today many women are overlooked and pushed aside because of their gender. Many of the big wigs in businesses today feel that a woman is inferior to a man’s intelligence of work skill trades. A woman can simply not handle the stress on the body or the mind thinking dilemmas in which a man can supposedly accomplish. Affirmative action however has allowed the women a chance to display their skills but what the debate arises is, because of the gifts given by affirmative action is this good for the world of today. Mertus gives an example of a German landscaper that was excluded from his promotion due to his company's quota requirements. The company's quota requirements stated that if a man and a woman are applying for the same promotion and there is a tie, the woman will be given the job if less than half holding the job are women. Another example given is that of a male teacher who did not receive his promotions due to the same law. In both situations the quota requirement that affirmative action laws made for the work field, the woman was chosen. The debate by most individuals is that I lost my job or pay increase because of affirmative action. They feel that this law is unfair, taking away more gifts that I can give to myself or my family. Also, in that women are not capable of doing this type of work. The true idea of affirmative action is giving the lesser people of the world what our country promotes. In the constitution everyone is equal and is to be given the proper chances in life. Affirmative action simply, allows this so that the people in charge cannot disregard someone, a woman, because they simply do not like it. What is not seen by the people losing the extra money is that maybe she can actually do a better job than they can. She will give more to the world thus helping all of humanity and would not have had this chance if it was not for affirmative action. Also, the people who had nothing in life now feel a worth and are able to give more to the ones they love. This is the good that is unseen by most, that would not be possible if not for affirmative action being put into effect in the world. Ethan Watters shows his opinion on that affirmative action is providing an unfair advantage over one race to another. People throughout the world scream to be treated as the constitution states, “ To be treated as equals.” Watters proves his misconception of the right that having affirmative action play a part into the work force is giving unfair advantages. He states that minorities say they need this to be seen as an equal in a interview for a job. This right although allows them to have lower scores than another employee but still be able to obtain the position. Isn’t this hurting the company thus hurting the world. For the employee hired is not right for the job then how is this equal treatment when the worst person is chosen for the job is not the best, but only because of a right is hired. The author asks how could a law promote equal treatment for minorities but at the same time take away from majorities. Another situation in which affirmative action will play a part in is the physical work load, both body and mind. Women cannot produce the same amount of body power for a job in which a man can. This point is scientifically proving and if they were hired would be hurting the company in that the job could not be done properly. An example of this would be a jackhammer, or caring heavy loads. So in many times bosses are not discriminating because of race or gender but of pure power. Jobs require strength and brains, not just brains. John David Skrentny provides proof of the true need and equal treatment affirmative action provides. In a interview, a boss happens to like a certain race and that race is applying for his job opening. A white man also wants the job. What is weird is that the white man was chosen even though scores and experience went to the minority member, is this fair treatment? With affirmative action playing in the race is the same just a person and scores are looked at and the right person is chosen regardless of the boss’s preference. Also how is to say a woman cannot do the same work load as a man? What it is, is the want inside the person. There are women of the world that work with steel and power. But would not have the chance to prove their strength if not for affirmative action. It is also stated in polls taken that many people will not complain about something if they cannot perform the task equally well or better than their competition. So affirmative action just gives them the chance to prove it but the best person is still chosen to the race because affirmative action says so. Affirmative action only allows the opportunity to perform the job position, it must be obtained on its own. If it was not for affirmative action many people would have no chance to work and no work, means no money to live on. If you cannot have a goal in life to achieve why live, affirmative action allows you to have a chance not an actual job. Debate over affirmative action in the government is reviewed as unequal treatment of the race, a misconception.. The government indeed did make the law of affirmative action for the people; but do the high office holders truly believe in what they promote? Do they believe affirmative action does bring the joy of opportunity to people or the gift of pain to others? John Skrentry goes into the real feeling of some people by quoting books from others who also have debated this. In the “Politics of Preference: Democratic Institutions and affirmative action in the United States and India” by Sunita Parikh and “Affirmative Action: The Pros and Cons of Policy Practice” by Richard F. Tomusson, Faye J. Crosby and Sharon D. Herzberger, the debate is whether the government truly believes in their laws or if they are simply using it as campaign fuel. These books give examples of officials not believing in what affirmative action promotes. Although the good can be seen in their actions they may not believe in it and their morals of self worth come out. Just because one does not believe in something does not mean they do not respect it. The officials know that this is needed for people to succeed and they would not have if it was not for this. They know affirmative action does provide good not bad and that the country does practice what it preaches and will take the proper actions to see that it is carried out. Just like other laws, affirmative action has to see it is followed and not overlooked to have the best person for the job and the equal opportunities this country offers to all kinds of people. Stephan Thernsrom sees affirmative action as a right that is reversed in the actions that it gives. Affirmative action is a right that is to make equalness among the races. In actuality it is putting a race above the other. Companies, schools and courts are forced to make exceptions to the minority members in the decisions that they make. This law sets quotas that puts a race above the other. As though this race needed an extra chance. Many issues that minority members must deal with in race and gender do not play apart anymore. These two discriminations are stricken form the issue. Affirmative action puts the two discriminations back into play as if they were a problem. This is putting a race above the other as it has to be race-sensitive to them. Why should a right be used in society that does not promote equalness among the races. Curry shows the need for the use of affirmative action in the government. People are viewed differently in life because of skin color. Some races are seen as not being as smart asothers or committing more crimes simply because of color. Studies show that more blacks or Mexicans are pulled over simply for not doing anything wrong but on they simply looked suspicious. There are people that see a race to be lesser than themselves and in turn make them pay in a way for being different. Affirmative action was created by the government to counter act these harmful accusations. The government uses it to enforce people to view another as equal in all they do. By making companies use certain quotas on workers, by having to have so many people of a race in their work. Schools that must allow certain students to enroll though their grades may no be as high as others. Affirmative action makes these chances to minorities an achievable goal. There are people in the world in which will do almost anything to have a chance for their dreams to become a reality, but because of their race or gender this is an unachievable task. Affirmative action allows the task to happen. It does not give them the dream itself, but the chance to be put in the spot where it can come true. Without this use of affirmative action this could not be done. This makes everyone seem as an equal, as they should be. To have the same goals and opportunities as everyone else but now the chance to fulfill them is on their own. Joanne Barkan admits that affirmative action has its flows but would hesitate to give it up. The true reasons for the arguing of affirmative action for so long between people was not the unfairness or edge it might give to someone, but the value of color blindness. Affirmative action does not promote an edge to one race, but that of equalizes between the races. Barkan gives an example of a man who states, “ It is okay to be race-sensitive to blacks but not to others simple because it is doing better.” This is were the flaw is, but without these people too could not go to college. Yes, there are changes that need to be made in some cases, but many others benefit from it’s perfection’s. Affirmative action provides so much for so many. The government runs this country and it is it the responsibility to practice what they preach. By affirmative action playing apart and giving its rights to people through their daily lives the government is doing the job. The government is making everyone equal and if one situation is compromised affirmative action neutralizes it. The reason behind affirmative action used in the allotment of higher education for minorities is also wondered to be fair or unfair. Ronald Dworkin explains that may people view affirmative action as unconstitutional, violating the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Others will disagree with this statement. They believe that if it was not for affirmative action they would never receive the rights which we as a country promote. This thinking of fair and unfairness, ties into the seeking of higher education in that many students are pushed away because of their gender or skin color. Thus making their goals unachievable and the American Dream a mire myth. It is because of affirmative action that many minorities reach their so called American Dream, because their skin is not viewed not their sex or test scores. Debate flies back and forth every day on the problem, is this right or wrong to the majority members. The right decision can only be made by that person in which it is affecting. So, some people may not receive any choice. Affirmative action is necessary in the farther pursuit of minorities in higher education. William Forbath and Gerald Torres are not in favor of affirmative action. They to believe that it takes more away than giving good to people. While trying to make equal races between the people of today it puts one in front of the other, as if they were more important. These students do not have the same grades as those being turned away. This is strange, why is one of lesser value allowed in while one of a stronger stature is turned away. Forbath and Torres are in favor of the 10 Percent Plan. The 10 Percent Plan provides the top ten percent of students in poor schools the opportunity to go to U.T. and other colleges. This act does not put one race above the other like affirmative action, but simply gives finical aid to the students that deserve to go to school though they cannot afford it. The chance to make something of themselves is given in an unfair manner. This does not put one race above the other just financial help to the less fortunate that cannot help the cards that they where dealt. Dinesh D’Souza sees the need for affirmative action to play apart in the seeking of high education. It can allow a person who has not had the easiest life a chance in the world to come about. Many view a person of a different race as poor or not having moral respect as their-self to be a lesser human. Affirmative action allows each individual the right to be viewed the same, color blindness. All which is seen is their names and scores. Affirmative action allows the equal opportunity to succeed. The misconception that people get is the success is given, not true. The opportunity to succeed is given the rest is up to the individual themselves. If they want a chance in life to succeed affirmative action is the helping stone that makes all equal as it should be. Curry too, supports the use of affirmative action playing a role in the seeking of higher education. Curry explains that though we promote and believe that everyone is equal to one another this is not true. There are those who still see one race lesser than that of themselves. Because they are a different color or gender they are not as important or cannot do as much good in society. Affirmative action allows their color to not be viewed. For those of a lesser background to have a chance in life. Studies show that those who are without, respect and go the extra mile in the gifts in which they are given. Affirmative action allows the gift of education and minority members are proving to receive more diplomas in their classes than that of the majority members. Affirmative action does not put a race above another but a chance to succeed for the ones that are viewed less in life. This is the land of opportunity, affirmative action gives the person the shot and what they do with it is up to them. Ben Gose argues the reasons behind affirmative action’s value of race-sensitive admissions policies in selective universities for blacks. Many people believe that affirmative action playing a role in admissions acceptance for blacks to selective colleges is taking away future learned skills from others. These people believe this use of admissions unfair to the other higher scoring students. Tests have shown that the black students perform less academically than the white students in their studies. Although what was unseen by the studies of this so called bad use of admissions is that the black students are earning more degrees. The black students, even though showing lower scores on test, are actually earning more degrees in their percentage of student body that the whites' percentage with higher grades. What is still strange though is that the blacks with the same degrees are earning less than the whites are. It appears that no matter how much of an attempt is made to make it equal, others are out there to take back what was given. This is a losing battle not pleasing anyone. We, on the other hand, must look at it as if we do not allow this admissions to these few students who are brave enough to make an attempt to survive the racial battles of the world these people may never succeed, being held back in all aspects of life. How is this admissions ruling unfair? Mr. Thernstorm explains how it is an unequal scale in admissions ruling. The scale on which they weigh acceptance is equal, viewed the same for all. A student at a college explains his research done. See, Timothy Maguire received a part time job in the registration office. After becoming couriers he found the admissions forms that are reviewed. It showed that though the black race students were admitted, their scores and entrance tests were lower than that of the white students that were turned away by the college. This was at one of the top law schools in the states. If this type of admission selection is reviewed in this manner at all schools how are some students going to get in. So is this equalizer affirmative action really a tool for reverse discrimination. Thus given unfair advantages to those minority members that claim to be viewed as unequal, but by having this they are viewed as better or more important, for the college has to fill their quota ruling for having so many students in the college of a certain race. In turn rejecting the people that can make a better tomorrow. Mrs. Fuentes sees the need for affirmative action use in college admissions. Still today people are not viewed as equals. Though our country promotes this, it is not always the case. There are many admission advisors in colleges that to do not see only one color. They view the students forms as many different races, instead of one race not letting their moral attitudes play apart in decision making. Affirmative action gives this blind look of color making all students appear the same. Fuentes tells that because of affirmative action use on many admission forms the race is not a question asked by the school. See if the race of the individual is not on the form the person who decides whether your are accepted only sees a name. So without affirmative action playing a part in admissions many students would no chance of seeking a higher education. Education is the key to life, without it a person is nothing. This action just allows a person to be treated in the way our country promotes, “Equal.” This gives everyone the same chances in life to do better but taking the initiative to do well in them is up to the person themselves. Supporting the use of affirmative action in college admissions is shared by many people of today. Mr. Ronald Dworkin is one of those people. He looks at the statistical side of the issue. The studies show that the minority students may score lower in graded tests for enrollment into college, the average grade in their group is higher than that of the majorities. The minority members see the grace in which they are receiving because of affirmative action and use their time wisely. Their grades are proving this to be true. What is also unseen by the many individuals that believe this to be unfair is the lower wages the minority members are receiving in their work they schooled in. The minority work load are receiving lower salaries that their white majority members that have the same educational background. So why is affirmative action use viewed unfair in one situation, as admissions, but no matter were the other student goes to study receives higher pay for the same effort. So without affirmative action rights many people in the world today would have nothing in life. They would have no life, money, or self-worth. Affirmative action gives this to the people. It does not give them the job, the effort still must come from the student, the chance is just there. We all know without an education, a person will get no where in life fast, affirmative action give them the chance to make a difference. The action is up to them. There are still people in the world that believe affirmative action is stealing more than what it is bringing to others. Actually, if we look at it, the so called stealing is from someone who has something to take. The gifts are for the people who do not have anything and without affirmative action can not have anything. People need to stop being greedy and start trying to give everyone a fair chance in life to succeed. They also need to stop becoming angry when they did not gain their wealth to give someone else a start. The importance of affirmative action should now be seen and that it is necessary for the lives of many and without it would suffer.
Word Count: 3677
Copyright 1999-2004 Wow Essays, All Rights
Reserved
Design by Dream Net Studio
