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.