DOCSLIB.ORG

Thirty Years of the Single European Market Stefano Micossi No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thirty Years of the Single European Market Stefano Micossi No Thirty Years of the Single European Market Stefano Micossi No. 148 / October 2016 Abstract Over the past thirty years, the Single European Market has been the core business of the European Union, and enormous progress has been achieved in both ‘widening’ the economic activities covered by EU legislation and ‘deepening’ the acquis to overcome emerging gaps in integration in areas already covered by legislation. And yet, empirical evidence indicates that market integration has stalled on many fronts and, more importantly, that the expected economic benefits of integration in terms of higher growth of incomes, jobs, and productivity have fallen short of expectations, notably in the long-established EU-15 member states. The situation has not improved since the introduction of the euro. This paper reviews the main developments in Single European Market (SEM) legislation and regulatory activities over the past three decades; it summarises the results of the SEM programme in market integration, highlighting areas where gaps appear to be more evident; and discusses the impact of economic integration within the SEM, including aspects that play an important role in feeding popular resistance to integration. Keywords: Single European Market, regulatory models, free movements, goods, persons, capital, services. This paper was delivered by the author as a Valedictory Lecture on the occasion of his receiving the prestigious title of Honorary Professor of the College of Europe, 19 October 2016. It was first published by the College of Europe as Bruges European Policy Briefing No. 41/2016 and is republished by CEPS with the kind permission of the College. ISBN 978-94-6138-551-2 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the European Commission or CEPS. Available for free downloading from the CEPS website (www.ceps.eu) © CEPS 2016 Centre for European Policy Studies ▪ Place du Congrès 1 ▪ B-1000 Brussels ▪ Tel: (32.2) 229.39.11 ▪ www.ceps.eu TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2. An Innovative Regulatory Model .............................................................................................. 7 (a) Market access ......................................................................................................................... 8 (b) Article 114 TFEU ................................................................................................................. 11 (c) Agencies and networks of regulators ............................................................................... 13 (d) Public services ..................................................................................................................... 16 (e) Establishment and company mobility ............................................................................. 17 (f) On the posting of workers ................................................................................................. 19 3. The Economic Impact of the Single European Market .......................................................... 20 (a) Market opening under Single Market legislation ........................................................... 21 (b) Economic effects of the Single European Market ........................................................... 24 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 30 References ............................................................................................................................................ 31 Thirty Years of the Single European Market Stefano Micossi* CEPS Special Report No. 148 / October 2016 Introduction Over the past thirty years the Single European Market (henceforth SEM) has been the core business of the European Union, and enormous progress has been achieved in both ‘widening’ the economic activities covered by EU legislation and in ‘deepening’ the acquis to overcome emerging gaps in integration in areas already covered by legislation (Pelkmans 2011). And yet, empirical evidence indicates that market integration has stalled on many fronts and, more importantly, that the expected economic benefits of integration in terms of higher growth of incomes, jobs and productivity have fallen short of expectations, notably in the long- established EU-15 member states. The situation has not improved since the introduction of the euro. The purpose of this paper is to review the main developments in SEM legislation and regulatory activities over the past three decades; to summarise the results of the SEM programme in market integration, highlighting the areas where gaps appear to be more significant; and to discuss the impact of economic integration within the SEM, including aspects that play an important role in feeding popular resistance to integration. Although SEM policies for financial services will be discussed, recent developments in the Banking Union and Commission proposals for a Capital Markets Union will not be covered, except for aspects of general relevance for the SEM’s broad architecture. The paper is written from the perspective of an economist who has devoted much of his professional life to matters of economic and monetary integration in Europe, and who, by necessity, has become keenly aware of the importance of legal and institutional arrangements in the functioning of economic systems. Particular attention will be paid to the issues of economic incentives in institutional design, while steering away from the detailed legal complexities and controversies surrounding SEM laws. * Stefano Micossi is Director General of Assonime, a business association and think tank in Rome. He has taught at the College of Europe since 1991, with an interruption during his stint at the European Commission (where he served as Director General of Industry in 2005-08), until the academic year 2015- 16. He chairs the LUISS School of European Political Economy (SEP) and is a member of the boards of CEPS, Cassa Depositi e Prestiti and the CIR Group. The author is grateful to Fabrizia Peirce and Aurora Saija for in-depth discussions and outstanding help in searching the bibliography and the data sources, and to Ginevra Bruzzone for reading the full draft and providing useful suggestions for improvement. He remains solely responsible for remaining errors and omissions. | 1 2 | STEFANO MICOSSI 1. Overview The goal of economic integration constituted the principal focus of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, in the specific form of the establishment of a common internal market, characterised by the freedom of movement of goods, services and productive factors (labour and capital). Its distinguishing feature was, in addition to being a free trade area and a custom union with a common external tariff, the aim of eliminating ‘technical’ barriers arising from national rules for the protection of health, safety and the environment, and to a limited extent of tax barriers as well. Three features stand out in this regard (Craig 2003). First, integration entails not only the elimination of barriers (‘negative’ integration) but also the harmonisation of legislation that provides standards of protection of worthy goals of general interest (‘positive’ integration) applicable throughout the SEM. Second, the elimination and prevention of barriers also concerns behaviour that may distort the level playing field in the SEM after the market has been opened, i.e. by means of public subsidies and protections granted in the domestic market to national players or anti-competitive actions by national players. These distortions are addressed through competition policy and in particular state aid policy – a policy unique to the European construction that directly constrains the member states. Third, market opening and liberalisation do not preclude public intervention, e.g. environmental protection through the Common Agricultural Policy or cohesion policies to help weaker economies withstand the impact of market opening. Common policies will normally be administered by the Commission – often under Council oversight through specialised Council committees. Already in the early years of the Economic Community, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) emerged as a fundamental player in the integration process through its adjudication of cases and ‘preliminary’ rulings on questions raised by national courts regarding the treaty’s interpretation. Its central role in the development of the SEM came to the fore with early decisions establishing the direct effect 1 and the supremacy over national legislation 2 of Community rules in areas of Community competence. They laid the ground for landmark decisions such as Reyners,3 Dassonville4 and Cassis de Dijon,5 with paramount consequences for the subsequent evolution of legislation. The SEM programme was formally launched in June 1985 by the Commission White Paper on Completing the Internal Market, endorsed by the European Council in Milan at the end of the same month. Its main message, which built upon the Cassis de Dijon jurisprudence, was that there
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Success Story Or a Failure? : Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries
    I Inari Sakki A Success Story or a Failure? Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries II Social psychological studies 25 Publisher: Social Psychology, Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki Editorial Board: Klaus Helkama, Chair Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti, Editor Karmela Liebkind Anna-Maija Pirttilä-Backman Kari Mikko Vesala Maaret Wager Jukka Lipponen Copyright: Inari Sakki and Unit of Social Psychology University of Helsinki P.O. Box 4 FIN-00014 University of Helsinki I wish to thank the many publishers who have kindly given the permission to use visual material from their textbooks as illustrations of the analysis. All efforts were made to find the copyright holders, but sometimes without success. Thus, I want to apologise for any omissions. ISBN 978-952-10-6423-4 (Print) ISBN 978-952-10-6424-1 (PDF) ISSN 1457-0475 Cover design: Mari Soini Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, 2010 III ABSTRAKTI Euroopan yhdentymisprosessin edetessä ja syventyessä kasvavat myös vaatimukset sen oikeutuksesta. Tästä osoituksena ovat muun muassa viimeaikaiset mediassa käydyt keskustelut EU:n perustuslakiäänestysten seurauksista, kansalaisten EU:ta ja euroa kohtaan osoittamasta ja tuntemasta epäluottamuksesta ja Turkin EU-jäsenyydestä. Taloudelliset ja poliittiset argumentit tiiviimmän yhteistyön puolesta eivät aina riitä kansalaisten tuen saamiseen ja yhdeksi ratkaisuksi on esitetty yhteisen identiteetin etsimistä. Eurooppalaisen identiteetin sanotaan voivan parhaiten muodostua silloin, kun perheen, koulutuksen
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Recognition in International Finance
    VOLUME 52, NUMBER 1, WINTER 2011 Mutual Recognition in International Finance Pierre-Hugues Verdier TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. .................................................. 56 1. MUTUAL RECOGNITION IN THEORY . ...................... 60 A. Internationalfinancial regulation and the limits of networks . 60 B. The concept of mutual recognition ....................... 63 C. Designing institutions for mutual recognition .............. 67 11. MUTUAL RECOGNITION IN PRACTICE .. .................... 71 A. Multilateral mutual recognition: The EU model ........... 71 1. The evolution of the European approach ............... 72 2. The European politics of mutual recognition ........... 78 B. Bilateral mutual recognition: The SEC-Australia arrangement ..................................... 82 1. The Tafara-Peterson article and the SEC-Australia arrangement .................... .............. 82 2. The bilateralpolitics of mutual recognition ............ 88 III. REEXAMINING MUTUAL RECOGNITION .................... 92 A. Mechanics ....................................... 92 B. Effects . ......................................... 96 C. Future .. ........................................ 100 1. Transatlantic regulatory cooperation .................. 101 2. Toward mutual recognition in Southeast Asia? ........ 104 IV. CONCLUSION ....... ......................................... 107 56 Harvard InternationalLaw journal / Vol. 52 Mutual Recognition in International Finance Pierre-Hugues Verdier* In recent years, scholars have devoted considerable attention
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Market Integration in the EU: a Practical Inventory of Benefits and Hurdles in the Single Market
    Financial market integration in the EU: A practical inventory of benefits and hurdles in the Single Market Financial market integration in the EU: A practical inventory of benefits and hurdles in the Single Market Imprint: © 2019 Bertelsmann Stiftung/ ESMT European School of Management ESMT Berlin (Hrsg.) and Technology Schlossplatz 1 Authors: 10178 Berlin Katharina Gnath, Bertelsmann Stiftung Germany Benjamin Große-Rüschkamp, ESMT Berlin Christian Kastrop, Bertelsmann Stiftung Editing: Dominic Ponattu, Bertelsmann Stiftung David Gow Jörg Rocholl, ESMT Berlin Marcus Wortmann, Bertelsmann Stiftung Title image: Andrew Malone/Networking/flickr.com – CC BY 2.0, Bertelsmann Stiftung https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Programme Europe’s Future Carl-Bertelsmann-Str. 256 33311 Gütersloh Germany Financial market integration in the EU | Page 3 Contents 1 Abstract ............................................................................................................ 5 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6 3 On the benefits of a single market for capital and finance in Europe: A review of effects and channels .................................................... 7 3.1 Definition and history of financial integration in Europe .............................................................. 7 3.2 Theoretical benefits and channels of financial integration .......................................................... 8 3.3 Potential caveats of financial integration
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit Jargon Buster
    Brexit Jargon Buster Brexit Jargon Buster • 1 2 • Brexit Jargon Buster AAgencies European Union agencies regulate a number of regimes for goods and services; the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki regulates chemicals and biocides; the European Medicines Agency, formerly in London is now relocated in Amsterdam responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines in the EU; the European Aviation Safety Agency. AIFMD The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. This EU Directive regulates the managers (AIFMs) of alternative investment funds (AIFs). AIFMD includes passporting rights (see separate definition) for EU AIFMs to market funds across the EU. The Directive also contains provisions allowing non-EU AIFMs to become part of the passporting regime by way of a ‘third country passport’ (see separate definition) which may, in the future, provide a means for UK AIFMs to retain passporting rights post-Brexit. Competition law Competition laws of the EU are set out in the TFEU. They are a very important aspect of the single market. The European Commission is tasked with developing policy and enforcing the law ensuring that the European Union remains free from business practices that could ultimately be harmful to competition and consumers. In doing so, the Commission works with national competition authorities which are obliged also to apply EU competition law as well as domestic law. Particular emphasis is placed on ensuring businesses do not enter into anti-competitive agreements or abuse dominant positions in markets; the consequences of doing so can be severe. Brexit Jargon Buster • 3 The European Commission also assesses very large mergers and state aid.
    [Show full text]
  • The Single Market Scoreboard, 2004 and 2007
    Policy Area: Doing Business in Europe European Union Center of North Carolina EU Briefings, March 2008 The removal of all barriers to the free movement of goods, people and capital – to the extent necessary to ensure the smooth operation of the European Common Market – was the central objective of the 1957 Treaty of Rome (articles 3a to 3c), while the removal of barriers to the provision of services was considered to be an implicit objective of the Treaty. Collectively, these form the four freedoms of what is today labeled the Single European Market (SEM) or “the Internal Market”. Market integration – linked to the improved competitiveness of European economies and firms and economic growth – has been the central objective of the European Economic Community. The first stage in the construction of the European Common Market involved a ten-year program, starting in 1958, to eliminate all tariff barriers on industrial products and proved to be a resounding success. However, given national obstacles, there were delays on the removal of non- tariff barriers to trade (NTBTs) which can be defined broadly as any national policies that in effect discriminate against products entering the national market from other countries. Examples of such barriers include: • Different national regulations on product standards that may block imports otherwise perfectly safe for consumers. • Rules on establishment which require companies (such as banks) to go through lengthy and expensive application procedures to set up operations in another member state. • Government procurement programs, whereby governments discriminate in favor of national companies in the purchase of items. From the perspective of competition, the official aim of EU market integration – and, more specifically, of the EU’s Competition Policy which is discussed below – is to create a “level playing field” whereby companies from one European member state are not placed at a competitive disadvantage because of the market distorting practices of governments and firms in either their own member state or in any other.
    [Show full text]
  • Subsidiarity Between Economic Freedom and Harmonized Regulation
    www.ssoar.info Subsidiarity between economic freedom and harmonized regulation: is there an optimal degree of European integration? Gilroy, Michael; Schreckenberg, Heike; Seiler, Volker Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Gilroy, M., Schreckenberg, H., & Seiler, V. (2013). Subsidiarity between economic freedom and harmonized regulation: is there an optimal degree of European integration? Federal Governance, 10(2), 3-18. https://nbn-resolving.org/ urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-343227 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Basic Digital Peer Publishing-Lizenz This document is made available under a Basic Digital Peer zur Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den DiPP-Lizenzen Publishing Licence. For more Information see: finden Sie hier: http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/service/dppl/ http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/service/dppl/ Special Issue on Federalism and Identity edited by Michael Burgess, Soeren Keil and Sean Mueller. SUBSIDIARITY BETWEEN ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND HARMONIZED REGULATION: Is there an Optimal Degree of European Integration? by Mike Gilroy*, Volker Seiler**, Heike Schreckenberg*** Universität Paderborn, Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften Email: *[email protected] , **[email protected] , ***[email protected] Abstract: According to the European Union's (EU's) principle of subsidiarity, responsibilities of any kind should always be allocated to the lowest level possible. When applying this to the EU's economic union, one might assume that the decentralization of trading structures as well as the ensuring of national economic freedoms are basic necessities for a reliable implementation of the concept of subsidiarity. Nevertheless, with view to the sustained enlargement of the European Single Market, it seems that the centralization of trading structures has not lost its attractiveness yet.
    [Show full text]
  • Libera Prestazione Dei Servizi E Mercato Interno
    ALMA MATER STUDIORUM - UNIVERSITA' DI BOLOGNA DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN DIRITTO DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA XXV CICLO Settore Concorsuale di afferenza: 12/E1 Settore Scientifico disciplinare: IUS/14 La circolazione dei servizi in una economia sociale di mercato Presentata da: dott. Mattia Bosio Coordinatore Dottorato Relatore Chiar.ma Prof.ssa Lucia Serena Rossi Chiar.ma Prof.ssa Alessandra Zanobetti Esame finale anno 2014 1 Al mio babbo ed alla mia mamma. Ed a chi diede il La che ancora risuona nel vento... "Je refuse une Europe qui ne serait qu'un marché, une zone de libre- échange sans âme, sans conscience, sans volonté politique, sans dimension sociale. Si c'est vers ça qu'on va, je lance un cri d'alarme." Jacques Delors 2 INDICE Introduzione Parte I: Il regime giuridico conflittuale del diritto europeo dei servizi in una economia di mercato Capitolo I. Una disciplina giuridica comunitaria in favore del principio del Paese di origine SEZIONE I. La portata estensiva della libera prestazione dei servizi ai sensi del diritto primario. § 1. La nozione di servizio: una accezione essenzialmente comunitaria § 2. Gli elementi costitutivi della prestazione comunitaria di servizi a) L’esercizio temporaneo b) ... di un'attività economica autonoma c) ...che comporti l'attraversamento di una frontiera interna. § 3. I Soggetti beneficiari della libera prestazione § 4. L'efficacia diretta della clausola di libera prestazione § 5. Le restrizioni vietate: misure discriminatorie e misure indistintamente applicabili § 6. Il rapporto con le altre libertà fondamentali: il mercato unico dalle merci ai servizi § 7. Relazioni complementari con il diritto di stabilimento: il livello di controllo esercitato sugli operatori transfrontalieri dal Paese ospitante § 8.
    [Show full text]
  • After Brexit
    Politics and Governance (ISSN: 2183–2463) 2019, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 19–29 DOI: 10.17645/pag.v7i3.2059 Article EU Single Market(s) after Brexit Michelle Egan School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC 20016, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 10 March 2019 | Accepted: 5 June 2019 | Published: 16 September 2019 Abstract This article focuses on the European single market, which has been one of the central issues in terms of the impact of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. As the aim of the single market project is to open the internal borders of the EU to the free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor to create cross-jurisdictional markets, the economic and political ef- fects of Brexit will be widespread, if not yet fully understood, outside the British polity. The article looks at the current state of the single market, then highlights the impact of British withdrawal on economic governance, focusing on different market freedoms, given the degree of trade interdependence and integrated supply chains that have evolved in response to changes in goods and services. One of the lessons from Brexit negotiations is the importance of distinguishing between different single market(s) when assessing the impact of British ‘exit’ on member states. The concluding section focuses on the political safeguards of market integration to manage the relationship between the UK and EU, to illustrate how judicial, market, and institutional safeguards create options and constraints in mitigating the effects of ‘exit’. Keywords Brexit; European Union; market access; market integration; single market; safeguards Issue This article is part of the issue “The Impact of Brexit on EU Policies”, edited by Ferdi De Ville (Ghent University, Belgium) and Gabriel Siles-Brügge (University of Warwick, UK).
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Brief
    Policy brief The United Kingdom and the (Digital) æ Single Market Issue 2016/9• April 2016 by Harri Kalimo, Trisha Meyer, Jamal Shahin, Fausta Todhe Introduction By bundling the manifold policy expertise of the researchers of the Institute for European Studies The European Single Market has been the main thrust of the United Kingdom’s (IES), this paper forms part of a series of analyses involvement in the European Union. The European Free Trade Area (EFTA) was investigating the potential implications of a ‘Brexit’ created in 1960, driven by a British desire to offer European countries the economic scenario for different EU policies. All papers ask benefits of a larger internal market in a situation where the full accession of EFTA the same three questions: 1) What is the state countries to the European Economic Community was, for various reasons, not of the EU policy in focus? 2) What is the UK’s possible (Milward 2005: 3). For the UK, membership in the (now) EU in 1973 thus role/interest in this policy field? 3) What are the represented a deliberate choice to participate in the European integration project potential implications of a ‘Brexit’ scenario at the beyond its economic core. policy-level? Key events in EU-UK relations with a focus on the Single Market (based on Dinan 2014; Hartley 2014) After Claire Dupont and Florian Trauner introduce 1960 Austria, Denmark, Finland (1961), Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Swit- the project, Richard Lewis sets the historical and zerland and the United Kingdom establish the European Free Trade cultural context and explains how the UK and the Association (EFTA).
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation
    BRIEFINGS Requested by the DROI subcommittee Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation - Options for the EU © Shutterstock Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union PE 603.495 - June 2020 EN DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation - Options for the EU ABSTRACT The European Parliament (EP) has repeatedly underlined the need for stronger European requirements for companies to prevent human rights abuses and environmental harm and to provide access to remedies for victims. The debate — both in the EU institutions and in several Member States — has intensified surrounding due diligence obligations for companies throughout the supply chain. In this context, the EP Human Rights Subcommittee (DROI) requested two briefings on specific human rights related issues it should consider while preparing its position. The first briefing in this compilation addresses substantive elements, such as the type and scope of human rights violations to be covered, as well as the type of companies that could be subject to a future EU regulation. The second briefing discusses options for monitoring and enforcement of due diligence obligations, as well as different ways to ensure access to justice for victims of human rights abuses. The briefings offer a concise overview and concrete recommendations, contributing to the ongoing debate and taking into account the research undertaken on behalf of the European Commission. EP/EXPO/DROI/FWC/2019-01/LOT6/1/C/05 EN June 2020 - PE 603.495 © European Union, 2020 Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies This paper was requested by the European Parliament's subcommittee on Human rights English-language manuscript was completed on 24 April 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • NY Business Law Journal ([email protected])
    NYSBA SUMMER 2010 | VOL. 14 | NO. 1 NNYY BBusinessusiness LLawaw JJournalournal A publication of the Business Law Section of the New York State Bar Association Inside HeadNotes 5 (David L. Glass) Credit Rating Agencies: Their Role in the Financial Crisis and the Regulatory Price That They Must Now Pay 7 (Paul C. Roberts) Mortgage Broker Duties Under New York Law— Are Brokers Fiduciaries? 14 (Mordy Gross) Web Site Rights and Wrongs: Key Legal Issues in the Creation and Operation of Web Sites 22 (Jessica R. Friedman) Employment Law Update 32 (James R. Grasso) Inside the Courts: An Update on Securities Litigation 35 (Jay B. Kasner, Matthew J. Matule, Edward B. Micheletti and Peter B. Morrison) Caveat Corporate Litigator: The First Circuit Sets Back the Attorney Work Product Doctrine 46 (C. Evan Stewart) The Pendulum Begins to Swing Back: Kohen v. PIMCO 49 (David Pepper) Towards a More Consolidated Universe: Why and How Regulation Must Promote Essentially Inevitable Cross-Border Exchange Mergers 61 (Arielle L. Katzman) SEC Initiatives to Make the U.S. Capital Markets More Attractive to Foreign Private Issuers 81 (Guy P. Lander) Committee Reports 86 New York State Bar Association Business Law Section ANNUAL STUDENT WRITING COMPETITION The Business Law Section sponsors an annual Student Writing Competition, open to all students who are candidates for the J.D. or LL.M. degree at an ac- credited law school during the year in which the article is submitted. The stu- dent articles submitted in a given year that are judged fi rst and second best, provided they are of publishable quality and otherwise meet the criteria of the Competition, will receive cash prizes of $1,500 and $1,000, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Regulations
    European Agency for Safety and Health at Work Improving compliance with occupational safety and health regulations: an overarching review European Risk Observatory Literature review Improving compliance with occupational safety and health regulations: an overarching review – Literature review Authors: David Walters, Scientific Project Leader, Emeritus Professor, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, United Kingdom Richard Johnstone, Professor, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia Elizabeth Bluff, Visiting Fellow, School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), Australian National University Hans Jørgen Limborg, Project Manager, Research Director, TeamArbejdsliv, and Adjunct Professor, Roskilde University, Denmark Ulrik Gensby, Senior Researcher, TeamArbejdsliv, Denmark, and Adjunct Scientist, Institute for Work and Health, Canada Project Management: Dietmar Elsler, Annick Starren, Lothar Lieck, Malgorzata Milczarek, Ioannis Anyfantis, William Cockburn, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work This report was commissioned by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of EU-OSHA. More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). Cataloguing data can be found on the cover of this publication. © European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2021 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
    [Show full text]