Access to environmental information in an Open European Society - Directive 2003/4. Research Paper in Law 5/2003

[From the Introduction]. Information gives knowledge and knowledge gives power. Though in all EC Member States, the task to protect the environment is given to the administration, it is obvious that the administration is not the owner of the environment. The environment is everybody's. It is for this reason that administrative decisions which affect the environment must be transparent, open and must strike a balance between the general interest to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment on the one hand, the satisfying of specific private or public interests on the other hand. In order to allow at least a certain control of whether the administration strikes the right balance between the need to protect the environment and other legitimate or less legitimate needs, it appears normal and self-evident that information on the environment which is in the hands of public authorities, be also made available to the public and to citizens.

European Corporate Governance Reform and the German Party Paradox. CES Germany & Europe Working Papers, No. 03.1, 2003

This paper addresses the current discussion on links between party politics and production regimes. Why do German Social Democrats opt for more corporate governance liberalization than the CDU although, in terms of the distributional outcomes of such reforms, one would expect the situation to be reversed? I divide my analysis into three stages. First, I use the European Parliament’s crucial vote on the European takeover directive in July 2001 as a test case to show that the left-right dimension does indeed matter in corporate governance reform, beside cross-class and cross-party nation-based interests. In a second step, by analyzing the party positions in the main German corporate governance reforms in the 1990s, I show that the SPD and the CDU behave “paradoxically” in the sense that the SPD favored more corporate governance liberalization than the CDU, which protected the institutions of “Rhenish,” “organized” capitalism. This constellation occurred in the discussions on company disclosure, management accountability, the power of banks, network dissolution, and takeover regulation. Third, I offer two explanations for this paradoxical party behavior. The first explanation concerns the historical conversion of ideas. I show that trade unions and Social Democrats favored a high degree of capital organization in the Weimar Republic, but this ideological position was driven in new directions at two watersheds: one in the late 1940s, the other in the late 1950s. My second explanation lies in the importance of conflicts over managerial control, in which both employees and minority shareholders oppose managers, and in which increased shareholder power strengthens the position of works councils.