Social Inclusion or Market Competitiveness? A Comparison of Rural Development Policies in the European Union and the United States

The language of EU rural development policy appears more interested in social inclusion and that of US policy more interested in market competitiveness. We seek to determine why policies directed at rural development in the EU and the USA differ. In both contexts new rural development policies emphasize partnership and participation but we find local participation is used to promote social inclusion in the EU and market competitiveness in the USA. An examination of these dimensions illustrates important transcontinental differences and similarities in rural development policies. We explore the socio-historical reasons for differences in the commitment to social inclusion, while also noting similarities in the priority of market competitiveness.

Potential output in a rapidly developing economy: the case of China and a comparison with the United States and the European Union

The authors use a growth accounting framework to examine growth of the rapidly developing Chinese economy. Their findings support the view that, although feasible in the intermediate term, China's recent pattern of extensive growth is not sustainable in the long run. The authors believe that China will be able to sustain a growth rate of 8 to 9 percent for an extended period if it moves from extensive to intensive growth. They next compare potential growth in China with historical developments in the United States and the European Union. They discuss the differences in production structure and level of development across the three economies that may explain the countries' varied intermediate-term growth prospects. Finally, the authors provide an analysis of "green" gross domestic product and the role of natural resources in China's growth. © 2009, The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

‘Supra-stewardship’: A Tool for Citizen Participation in European Union Pandemic Preparedness Planning

This article proposes developing the public bioethics aspect of stewardship and applying it to the EU as ‘supra-stewardship’, a tool for opening a discursive space for citizen participation in EU preparedness planning. With this in mind the article highlights some of the contours for engagement on the boundaries of responsibility and the production of governance distortions and failures brought out by attention to framing, distribution, vulnerability and learning. This should help citizens to tackle the complementary expert and public rationalities that undermine their involvement, contribute supplementary knowledge towards governance, and help promote institutional learning by the EU and resilience.

Engaging with the European Union? Exploring the Europeanization of the British National Party

Hostility towards the process of European integration is generally considered to constitute one of the hallmarks of the far right ‘family’ in Europe. This article acknowledges such opposition but it also recognises that the rhetoric is often at odds with actual policy activities and aspirations. Not only have far right parties long advocated greater European inter-party co-operation but they are now actively pursuing engagement with the European Union, especially the European Parliament, as a means of advancing their own strategic interests and boosting their finances. This article focuses on one far right party, namely the British National Party (BNP) and examines the party's approach towards the EU, its activities within the EP and its efforts to boost pan European cooperation through the new Alliance of European National Movements (AENM). It argues that the party's engagement with the European Union may have allowed the BNP to take advantage of new political opportunity structures but in turn, opened it up to Europeanization and made it increasingly dependent on the EU.

Comparing Poverty Indicators in an Enlarged European Union

In this article, we explore the extent to which a consideration of welfare regime and socioeconomic differences in poverty levels and patterns can assist us in making an informed assessment of alternative poverty indicators. Poverty in the EU is normally defined in terms of income thresholds at the level of each member state. However, with the enlargement of the EU, such measures have come in for increasing criticism. One set of reservation relates to the limitations imposed by an entirely national frame of reference. An alternative critique focuses on the fact that low income is an unreliable indicator of poverty. In this article, we seek to explore the strength of both arguments by comparing the outcomes associated with ‘at risk of poverty’ and consistent poverty at both national and EU levels. Developing an appropriate assessment of poverty levels in the enlarged EU, particularly in periods of rapid change, is likely to require that we make use of a number of indicators none of which capture the full complexity of cross-national poverty outcomes. However, our analysis suggests that if a choice is to be made between the available indicators, the ‘mixed consistent poverty’ indicator developed in this study is best suited to achieving the stated EU objective of assessing the scale of exclusion from minimally acceptable standards of living in individual countries while also measuring the extent to which the whole population of Europe is sharing in the benefits of high average prosperity.