Why the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) is bad for you: a letter to the EU. Research Papers in Law, 5/2006

From the Introduction. The aim of the present “letter” is to provoke, rather than to prove. It is intended to further stimulate the – already well engaged – scientific dialogue on the open method of coordination (OMC).1 This explains why some of the arguments put forward are not entirely new, while others are overstretched. This contribution, belated as it is entering into the debate, has the benefit of some hindsight. This hindsight is based on three factors (in chronological order): a) the fact that the author has participated himself as a member of a national delegation in one of the OMC-induced benchmarking exercises (only to see the final evaluation report getting lost in the Labyrinth of the national bureaucracy, despite the fact that it contained an overall favorable assessment), as well as in a OECD led exercise of coordination, concerning regulatory reform; b) the extremely rich and knowledgeable academic input, offering a very promising theoretical background for the OMC; and c) some recent empirical research as to the efficiency of the OMC, the accounts of which are, to say the least, ambiguous. This recent empirical research grounds the basic assumption of the present paper: that the OMC has only restricted, if not negligible, direct effects in the short term, while it may have some indirect effects in the medium-long term (2). On the basis of this assumption a series of arguments against the current “spread” of the OMC will be put forward (3). Some proposals on how to neutralize some of the shortfalls of the OMC will follow (4).

Selecting Contexts. One Method of Selecting Contexts for Theatre Historiography

In principle, the world and life itself are the contexts of theatrical events. The term context is broad and thus seems hardly usable. It only makes sense to use the term when terminologies and methodologies determine which parts of their contexts are to be incorporated and analysed for which theatrical event. This presentation exemplifies a method which is particularly suitable for sensibly selecting the most important contexts for research in theatre history. The complexity of the representation increases continuously from The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life to Brecht’s “Street Scene” and “Everyday Theatre”, portrayals of rulers in feasts and parades to Hamlet productions by the Royal Shakespeare Company or a Wagner opera in Bayreuth. The different forms of theatre thus constitute a continuum which spans from “everyday theatre” to “art theatre”. The representation of the world in this continuum is sometimes questioned by the means of theatre, for example when Commedia dell’arte takes a critical stance towards the representative theatre of the humanists or when playful devices such as reversal, parody and fragmentation challenge the representative character of productions, which is applied by the Vice character for instance. There is a second component that has an impact on the continuum without a theatrical device: attitude, opinion, norms and bans which originate from society. As excerpts of contexts, they refer to single forms of theatre in the continuum. This results in a complex system of four components which evolves from the panorama between the antipodes “everyday theatre” and “art theatre” as well as both spheres of influence of which only one uses theatrical devices. All components interact in a specific time frame in a specific place in a specific way in each case, which can then be described as the theatricality in this time frame. This presentation will deal with what the concept is capable of doing.

The federal farm loan system, new method of farm mortgage finance, under national supervision; a practial manual upon organizing and conducting national farm loan associations, also joint stock land banks. Showing how farmers, investors, bankers and the public may obtain the fullest benefit of the system.

Mode of access: Internet.