Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (15)
- Part of Periodical (6)
- Working Paper (3)
- Book (1)
- Report (1)
Language
- English (21)
- German (4)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (26)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (26)
Keywords
- European Union (26) (remove)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (9)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (7)
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (6)
- Rechtswissenschaft (5)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (4)
- Medizin (3)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (1)
- Institut für Sozialforschung (IFS) (1)
- Institut für Wirtschaft, Arbeit, und Kultur (IWAK) (1)
- Philosophie (1)
O artigo trata da análise crítica de Jürgen Habermas da redefinição do papel político da Europa, mais voltada para a justiça social e a solidariedade, para um viés predominantemente econômico, de versão mais econômico-liberal, mais próxima da produtividade e da concorrência. A mudança política da integração europeia busca reforçar o pilar econômico da união monetária pela implementação de programas de ajustamento econômico do FMI. A consequência da opção da União Europeia por uma Europa-mercado de formato neoliberal é o desmonte do Estado social (mais voltado para justiça social) e a corrosão do elemento democrático das democracias nacionais (o esvaziamento da democracia). A consequência política dessa opção pelo neoliberalismo é a centralização supranacional de competências reguladoras para agências e organismos transnacionais europeus (Banco Central Europeu, Comissão Europeia, Tribunal Europeu, Parlamento Europeu), que lidam com acordos, contratos e tratados internacionais que deveriam funcionar como equivalentes de uma regulação política. O problema é a aprovação, a portas fechadas, de medidas que visam o controle da política econômica em detrimento da coordenação política. Isso implica a imposição de resoluções em áreas centrais de responsabilidade dos parlamentos dos Estados membros, potencializando nos Estados nacionais os problemas de legitimação necessária para implementar as políticas recomendadas de cima, explicitando a falha na construção da união monetária pela ausência dos instrumentos de uma política econômica comum.
Background: Women’s participation in medicine and the need for gender equality in healthcare are increasingly recognised, yet little attention is paid to leadership and management positions in large publicly funded academic health centres. This study illustrates such a need, taking the case of four large European centres: Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Germany), Karolinska Institutet (Sweden), Medizinische Universität Wien (Austria), and Oxford Academic Health Science Centre (United Kingdom).
Case:The percentage of female medical students and doctors in all four countries is now well within the 40–60% gender balance zone. Women are less well represented among specialists and remain significantly under-represented among senior doctors and full professors. All four centres have made progress in closing the gender leadership gap on boards and other top-level decision-making bodies, but a gender leadership gap remains relevant. The level of achieved gender balance varies significantly between the centres and largely mirrors country-specific welfare state models, with more equal gender relations in Sweden than in the other countries. Notably, there are also similar trends across countries and centres: gender inequality is stronger within academic enterprises than within hospital enterprises and stronger in middle management than at the top level. These novel findings reveal fissures in the ‘glass ceiling’ effects at top-level management, while the barriers for women shift to middle-level management and remain strong in academic positions. The uneven shifts in the leadership gap are highly relevant and have policy implications.
Conclusion: Setting gender balance objectives exclusively for top-level decision-making bodies may not effectively promote a wider goal of gender equality. Academic health centres should pay greater attention to gender equality as an issue of organisational performance and good leadership at all levels of management, with particular attention to academic enterprises and newly created management structures. Developing comprehensive gender-sensitive health workforce monitoring systems and comparing progress across academic health centres in Europe could help to identify the gender leadership gap and utilise health human resources more effectively.
This paper critically engages the legal and political framework for responding to democracy and rule of law backsliding in the EU. I develop a new and original critique of Article 7 TEU based on it being democratically illegitimate and normatively incoherent qua itself in conflict with EU fundamental values. Other more incremental and scaleable responses are desirable, and the paper moves on to assess the legitimacy of economic sanctions such as tying access to EU funds to performance on democratic and rule of law indicators or imposing fines on backsliding states. I hold such sanctions to be a priori legitimate, and argue that in some cases economic sanctions are even normatively required, given that EU material support of backsliding member states can amount to material complicity in their backsliding. However, an economic conditionality mechanism would need to be designed to minimize unjust and counterproductive effects. One way to pursue this could be to complement sanctions against the backsliding government with investment for prodemocratic actors in that state.
Background: Highly infectious diseases (HIDs) are defined as being transmissible from person to person, causing life-threatening illnesses and presenting a serious public health hazard. The sampling, handling and transport of specimens from patients with HIDs present specific bio-safety concerns. Findings The European Network for HID project aimed to record, in a cross-sectional study, the infection control capabilities of referral centers for HIDs across Europe and assesses the level of achievement to previously published guidelines. In this paper, we report the current diagnostic capabilities and bio-safety measures applied to diagnostic procedures in these referral centers. Overall, 48 isolation facilities in 16 European countries were evaluated. Although 81% of these referral centers are located near a biosafety level 3 laboratory, 11% and 31% of them still performed their microbiological and routine diagnostic analyses, respectively, without bio-safety measures.
Conclusions: The discrepancies among the referral centers surveyed between the level of practices and the European Network of Infectious Diseases (EUNID) recommendations have multiple reasons of which the interest of the individuals in charge and the investment they put in preparedness to emerging outbreaks. Despite the fact that the less prepared centers can improve by just updating their practice and policies any support to help them to achieve an acceptable level of biosecurity is welcome.
Die Masterarbeit untersucht die Beziehungen zwischen der Europäischen Union und der Volksrepublik China im Hinblick auf die Menschenrechtspolitk der EU. Anhand der chinapolitischen Strategiepapiere der EU wird der Frage nachgegangen, wie sich die Menschenrechtspolitik der EU gegenüber der Volksrepublik seit den Geschehnissen von 1989 entwickelt hat und inwiefern die von der EU verfolgten Politiken von Erfolg gekrönt waren.
Defenders of current restrictions on EU immigrants’ access to welfare rights in host member states often invoke a principle of reciprocity among member states to justify these policies. The argument is that membership of a system of social cooperation triggers duties of reciprocity characteristic of welfare rights. Newly arriving EU immigrants who look for work do not meet the relevant criteria of membership, the argument goes, because they have not yet contributed enough to qualify as members on the grounds of reciprocity. Therefore, current restrictions on their access to welfare rights are justified. In this article, I challenge this argument by showing how restrictions on EU immigrants’ access to welfare rights are inconsistent with duties of international reciprocity. There are different variations of this challenge, but my focus here will be on one that uses a veil of ignorance device to support this claim. What matters from a perspective concerned with international reciprocity, I will argue, is what kind of welfare policy EU member states would choose were they not to know whether those receiving EU migrants were net contributors or net beneficiaries to the relevant scheme of international cooperation made possible by the four freedoms, and freedom of movement in particular. I argue that framing the requirement of reciprocity in this way provides a more comprehensive understanding of what should count as an ‘unreasonable burden’ on the welfare systems of host member states. The paper also examines alternative accounts of ‘unreasonable burdens’. It shows when and how the current institutional structure of the EU could take steps to deal with such burdens by preventing member states from gaming a comprehensive system of welfare rights protections across member states and by recognising the achievements of those member states that best serve them.
Populists in the EU often call for restrictions on EU immigrants’ access to welfare rights. These calls are often demagogic and parochial. This paper aims to show what exactly is both distinct and problematic with these populist calls from a normative point of view while not necessarily reducible to demagogy and parochialism. The overall aim of the paper is not to argue that all populists call for such restrictions nor to claim that all calls for such restrictions are populist. The purpose of the paper is rather humble. It only aims to show that populist calls for restrictions on EU immigrants’ access to welfare rights are characterised by two normatively problematic arguments that target two different subsets of the citizenry: what I dub for the purpose of this paper the moralists and the immoralists. It is the way populists address these two subsets of the citizenry, as well as the fact that they could simultaneously appeal to the concerns of both groups, that makes populist approaches to welfare rights both conceptually distinct to other approaches as well as potentially politically appealing to a more diverse population of voters.
This article examines whether restrictions on access to welfare rights for EU immigrants are justifiable on grounds of reciprocity. Recently political theorists have supported some robust restrictions on the basis of fairness. They argue that if EU immigrants do not immediately contribute sufficiently to the provision of basic collective goods in the host state, restrictions on their access to the welfare state are justified. I argue that these accounts of the principle of reciprocity rely on an ambiguous conception of contribution that cannot deliver the restrictions it advocates. Several strategies open to those advocating reciprocity-based restrictions are considered and found wanting. This article defends that verdict from a number of objections.