DOCSLIB.ORG

135280027.Pdf (964.4Kb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
135280027.Pdf (964.4Kb) Swiss and Norwegian regions in Brussels: How and why do the regions of associated member-states of the EU mobilize in Brussels? By Frode Realfsen Master Thesis Department of Comparative Politics June 2015 i Abstract Why do the regions of Norway have regional offices in Brussels while the Swiss regions do not? The research done in the thesis features one of the first analyses done on regional mobilization from countries currently not member of the EU. This thesis starts with the assumption that there is some combination of full-member/associated member axis and the federal unitary axis that makes this difference in outcome. In using original interview data collected from eight regional offices from four states collected in Brussels. The interviews are then analyzed using comparable case analysis with MSSD. The conclusion suggests that it is the Norwegian membership of the EEA and Switzerland’s bilateral treaties which produce the difference in outcome and further that the Norwegian offices are operating identical to the offices of EU member-states when viewed from a functional perspective. ii Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my supervisor Michael Tatham for the indispensable and always patient feedback. And the greatest thanks also go to my respondents in the Brussels regional offices for their time and answers which made the thesis a possibility. Bergen June 2015 Frode Realfsen iii Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. iii 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 What makes this topic interesting? ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Motivation for the thesis ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Historical background .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Summary of findings ............................................................................................................................ 5 2 Theories of European integration and regionalization ................................................................................... 7 2.1 Liberal Intergovernmentalism ............................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Multi-level governance ........................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.1 Alternative regional categorization ...................................................................................... 10 2.3 Constructivism ................................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Mobilization ....................................................................................................................................... 12 3. Variables of regional offices and literature review ...................................................................................... 15 3.1 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.1 Information gathering .......................................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Policy influencing .................................................................................................................. 16 3.1.3 Promotion of region ............................................................................................................. 18 3.2 Channels ............................................................................................................................................ 18 3.2.1 Commission .......................................................................................................................... 18 3.2.2 EU Parliament (EP)................................................................................................................ 18 3.2.3 Their own government ......................................................................................................... 19 3.2.4 Bypassing the government ................................................................................................... 20 3.3 Co-operation with other regions ....................................................................................................... 20 3.4 Office type ......................................................................................................................................... 22 3.4.1 Public/Private partnerships .................................................................................................. 22 3.4.2 Administrative offices ........................................................................................................... 22 3.7 Independent Variables ...................................................................................................................... 23 4 Research design ............................................................................................................................................. 24 4.1 Theory on interviews ......................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 The interview process ....................................................................................................................... 25 4.3 The comparable method using Most Similar Systems Design .......................................................... 28 iv 4.4 Common issues with all types of research ........................................................................................ 29 4.5 Measuring influence .......................................................................................................................... 30 5. Case Selection ............................................................................................................................................... 34 5.1 Norway .............................................................................................................................................. 37 5.2 Switzerland ........................................................................................................................................ 38 5.3 Sweden .............................................................................................................................................. 40 5.4 Austria ............................................................................................................................................... 41 6 Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 43 6.1 The countries ..................................................................................................................................... 43 6.1.1 Switzerland ........................................................................................................................... 43 6.1.2 Norway ................................................................................................................................. 50 6.1.3 Austria .................................................................................................................................. 59 6.1.4 Sweden ................................................................................................................................. 66 6.2 Summary of analysis .......................................................................................................................... 73 6.3 Testing the hypotheses ..................................................................................................................... 75 7. Final discussion and conclusion .................................................................................................................... 82 7.1 Conclusion and implication ............................................................................................................... 83 8 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 88 v 1 Introduction 1.1 What makes this topic interesting? The idea of a “Europe of the Regions” has not come to fruition as was foreseen in the eighties and nineties. On the other hand the reality of today is that the regions of the EU states have become an integrated part of the policy process of the EU, where the number of regions that are represented in Brussels has grown steadily since the first offices were established in the middle of the eighties with the count in 2007 being about 250 (Moore, 2008, p. 520). That the regions from member-states are represented
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Smart Specialisation in Sparsely Populated European Arctic Regions
    Smart Specialisation in Sparsely Populated European Arctic Regions Jukka Teräs, Viktor Salenius, Laura Fagerlund and Lina Stanionyte 2018 EUR 29503 EN This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. Contact information Name: Smart Specialisation Platform Address: Edificio Expo. c/ Inca Garcilaso, 3. E-41092 Seville (Spain) E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +34 954488318 EU Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC114273 EUR 29503 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-79-98266-8 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2760/960929 Print ISBN 978-92-79-98267-5 ISSN 1018-5593 doi:10.2760/963629 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 © European Union, 2018 The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Reuse is authorised, provided the source of the document is acknowledged and its original meaning or message is not distorted. The European Commission shall not be liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.
    [Show full text]
  • The Status, Characteristics and Potential of SMART SPECIALISATION in Nordic Regions
    The status, characteristics and potential of SMART SPECIALISATION in Nordic Regions By Mari Wøien, Iryna Kristensen and Jukka Teräs NORDREGIO REPORT 2019:3 nordregio report 2019:3 1 The status, characteristics and potential of SMART SPECIALISATION in Nordic Regions By Mari Wøien, Iryna Kristensen and Jukka Teräs NORDREGIO REPORT 2019:3 Prepared on behalf of the Nordic Thematic Group for Innovative and Resilient Regions 2017–2020, under the Nordic Council of Ministers Committee of Civil Servants for Regional Affairs. The status, characteristics and potential of smart specialisation in Nordic Regions Nordregio Report 2019:3 ISBN 978-91-87295-67-6 ISSN 1403-2503 DOI: doi.org/10.30689/R2019:3.1403-2503 © Nordregio 2019 Nordregio P.O. Box 1658 SE-111 86 Stockholm, Sweden [email protected] www.nordregio.org www.norden.org Analyses and text: Mari Wøien, Iryna Kristensen and Jukka Teräs Contributors: Ágúst Bogason, Eeva Turunen, Laura Fagerlund, Tuulia Rinne and Viktor Salenius, Nordregio. Cover: Taneli Lahtinen Nordregio is a leading Nordic and European research centre for regional development and planning, established by the Nordic Council of Ministers in 1997. We conduct solution-oriented and applied research, addressing current issues from both a research perspective and the viewpoint of policymakers and practitioners. Operating at the international, national, regional and local levels, Nordregio’s research covers a wide geographic scope, with an emphasis on the Nordic and Baltic Sea Regions, Europe and the Arctic. The Nordic co-operation Nordic co-operation is one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional collaboration, involving Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland.
    [Show full text]
  • NGU Report 2012.005 Tropical Weathering in Norway, TWIN Final
    NGU Report 2012.005 Tropical Weathering in Norway, TWIN Final Report 2 Geological Survey of Norway NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway REPORT Tel.: 47 73 90 40 11 Telefax: 47 73 92 16 20 Report no.: 2012.005 ISSN 0800-3416 Grading: Open Title: Tropical Weathering In Norway, TWIN Final Report Authors: Client: Odleiv Olesen, Dag Bering, Marco Brönner, Einar Dalsegg, Karl Fabian, Ola Geological Survey of Norway Fredin, Jomar Gellein, Berit Husteli, Christian Magnus, Jan Steinar Rønning, and Norwegian Petroleum Terje Solbakk, Jan Fredrik Tønnesen & Jon Arne Øverland Directorate County: Commune: Vestfold, Vest-Agder, Sogn & Fjordane, Nord-Trøndelag, Nordland, Finnmark Map-sheet name (M=1:250.000) Number of pages: 188 Skien, Mandal, Florø, Ulsteinvik, Trondheim, Svolvær, Andøya Price (NOK): 645,- Fieldwork carried out: Date of report: Project no.: Person responsible: 2009-2011 02.05.2012 3307.00 Summary: The Geological Survey of Norway and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate established the TWIN Project (Tropical Weathering In Norway) in 2009 to improve the understanding of deep weathering on mainland Norway as well as offshore. All known reports of deep weathering in Norway have been reviewed and registered in a GIS database. We have selected four representative locations for more detailed studies in southern Norway (Kjose, Lista, Vågsøy-Stad and Inderøya) and another four locations in northern Norway (Vestvågøya, Hadseløya, Andøya and Hamarøya). Geophysical studies (2D resisitivity and refraction seismic) reveal fairly continuous saprolite layers with a thickness up to 100 metres in Vestfold (Kjose), Lofoten- Vesterålen, Hamarøya and Varangerhalvøya. The results also show that the degree of weathering varies extensively over short distances.
    [Show full text]
  • Population 1 Population
    Population 1 Population comparability, population change and its two components Introduction are presented as crude rates per 1 000 inhabitants, i.e. Demographic trends vary across the EU’s regions, with relative to the size of the average population of the region certain phenomena making a stronger impact in some (see ‘Data sources and availability’). regions than in others. This chapter describes the regional The maps show how the population change varies across pattern of demographic phenomena in 2008, at NUTS 3 level regions from growth to decline (Map 1.2) due to positive or across the EU-27 and by level 3 statistical region for EFTA negative natural change (Map 1.3) and positive or negative and candidate countries. However, due to data availability net migration and statistical adjustment (Map 1.4). constraints, several demographic indicators were analysed at NUTS 2 regional level. The current demographic situation in the EU-27 confirms a trend of continuing growth, which has been unbroken since 1960. The population of the EU-27 grew by 4.1 per 1 000 inhabitants in 2008, due to a natural increase (see Main statistical findings ‘Data sources and availability’) of 1.2 per 1 000 inhabitants and net migration (1) of 2.9 per 1 000 inhabitants. Although Population size and density the population of the EU-27 as a whole increased in 2008, this population change was unevenly distributed across the On 1 January 2009, 499.7 million people inhabited the 27 Member States. In 2008, the population increased in 20 EU Member States of the European Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Widespread and Accelerating Glacier Retreat on the Lyngen Peninsula, Northern Norway, Since Their ‘Little Ice Age’ Maximum
    Journal of Glaciology (2018), 64(243) 100–118 doi: 10.1017/jog.2018.3 © The Author(s) 2018. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Widespread and accelerating glacier retreat on the Lyngen Peninsula, northern Norway, since their ‘Little Ice Age’ maximum CHRIS R. STOKES,1 LISS M. ANDREASSEN,2 MATTHEW R. CHAMPION,1 GEOFFREY D. CORNER3 1Department of Geography, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK 2Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE), PO Box 5091 Majorstuen, N-0301 Oslo, Norway 3Department of Geosciences, UiT – The Arctic University of Norway, PO Box 6050 Langnes, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway Correspondence: Chris R. Stokes <[email protected]> ABSTRACT. The recession of mountain glaciers worldwide is increasing global sea level and, in many regions, human activities will have to adapt to changes in surface hydrology. Thus, it is important to provide up-to-date analyses of glacier change and the factors modulating their response to climate warming. Here we report changes in the extent of >120 glaciers on the Lyngen Peninsula, northern Norway, where glacier runoff is utilised for hydropower and where glacial lake outburst floods have occurred. Glaciers covered at least 114 km2 in 1953 and we compare this inventory with those from 1988, 2001 and a new one from 2014, and previously-dated Little Ice Age (LIA) limits. Results show a − steady reduction in area (∼0.3% a 1) between their LIA maximum (∼1915) and 1988, consistent with increasing summer air temperatures, but recession paused between 1988 and 2001, coinciding with increased winter precipitation.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate in Norway 2100 Report
    M-741 | 2017 Climate in Norway 2100 – a knowledge base for climate adaptation NCCS report no. 1/2017 Photo: Anne Olsen-Ryum, www.hasvikfoto.no Lead authors I. Hanssen-Bauer, E.J. Førland, I. Haddeland, H. Hisdal, S. Mayer, A. Nesje, J.E.Ø. Nilsen, S. Sandven, A.B. Sandø, A. Sorteberg og B. Ådlandsvik CLIMATE IN NORWAY 2100 Commissioned by The Norwegian Centre for Climate Services (NCCS) is a collaboration between the Norwegian Meteoro- logical Institute, the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, Uni Research and the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research. The main purpose of NCCS is to provide decision makers in Norway with relevant information regarding climate change adaptation. In addition to the partners, the Norwegian Environment Agency is represented on the Board. The NCCS report series includes reports where one or more authors are affiliated to the Centre, as well as reports initiated by the Centre. All reports in the series have undergone a professional assessment by at least one expert associated with the Centre. They may also be included in report series from the institutions to which the authors are affiliated. 2 CLIMATE IN NORWAY 2100 Title: Date Climate in Norway 2100 April 2017 – a knowledge base for climate adaptation ISSN nr. Rapport nr. 2387-3027 1/2017 Authors Classification Lead authors: I.Hanssen-Bauer1,8, E.J.Førland1,8, I.Hadde- Free land2,8, H.Hisdal2,8, D.Lawrence2,8, S.Mayer3,8,9, A.Nesje4,9, J.E.Ø.Nilsen5,9, S.Sandven5,9, A.B.Sandø6,9, A.Sorteberg4,9, B.Ådlandsvik 6,9 Clients Norwegian Environment
    [Show full text]
  • European Communities Xvi/24/72-E
    XVI/24/72-E COMMISSION., OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES General Directorate for Regional Policy Regional Economic Structures and Policies in Norway March 1972 XVI/24/72-E N 0 T I C E From the statistical data and information supplied by the national administrations of the acceding States, the Directorate-General for Regional Policy has undertaken to produce an analysis of the regional structures and regianl policies of these States, to co~plete the analysis already made for the six Member States (1). The present study represents a first general deGct~tion. It will be supploment0d by more detailed statistical analyses which, in spite of many gaps, will provide n more complete picture of the regional struc­ tures in the acceding countries and the problems they present in the enlarged Community. (1) See Analysis, 1971 - 2 - XVI/24/72-E C 0 N T E N T S Pages I. Regional delimitation ................................... 4 II. Regional economic structures •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8 III. Nature of regional problems ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 IV. Evolution of regional problems and regional policy from 1950 to 1970 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 21 V. Current regional policy (1971) ........................... 23 VI. Regional programming .................................... 34 VII. Town and country planning ............................... VIII. Regional policy- responsible institutions ••••••••••••••• 36 IX. Results of regional policy .............................. 38 Bibliography ............................................ 43 Index
    [Show full text]
  • Green Growth in Nordic Regions : Eight Case Studies
    Arbeidsnotat 2019:07 Green growth in Nordic regions Eight case studies Allan Dahl Andersen, Markus Bugge, Marco Capasso, Suyash Jolly, Antje Klitkou, Markku Sotarauta, Markus Steen and Nina Suvinen Working Paper 2019:07 Green growth in Nordic regions Eight case studies Allan Dahl Andersen, Markus Bugge, Marco Capasso, Suyash Jolly, Antje Klitkou, Markku Sotarauta, Markus Steen and Nina Suvinen Working paper 2019:07 Published by Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education Addresse P.O. Box 2815 Tøyen, N-0608 Oslo. Visiting Address: Økernveien 9, N-0653 Oslo. Project No. 20764 Customer NordForsk Address Stensberggata 27, NO-0170 Oslo Photomontage NIFU ISBN 978-82-327-0389-0 ISSN 1894-8200 (online) Copyright NIFU: CC BY-NC 4.0 www.nifu.no Preface This working paper is an outcome of the research project “Where does the green economy grow? The Geography of Nordic Sustainability Transitions (GONST)”, funded by the Nordic Green Growth Research and Innovation Programme (appli- cation number 83130). The project started in 2017 is to be finalised in 2020. The working paper has been edited by Marc Capasso and Antje Klitkou and is based on a collection of eight case studies carried out in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, for each country two cases. The authors of the case studies are as following: Suyash Jolly (Lund University) authored the case studies on Scania, Sweden, Värmland, Sweden, North Jutland, Denmark and Southern Denmark. Markku Sotarauta (Tampere University) and Nina Suvinen (Tampere University) wrote the two Finish case studies on Tampere and Central Finland. The case study on Hordaland, Norway was written by Allan Dahl Andersen (NIFU) and Markus Bugge (NIFU).
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Norway
    Quaternary Geology of Norway QUATERNARY GEOLOGY OF NORWAY Geological Survey of Norway Special Publication , 13 Geological Survey of Norway Special Publication , 13 Special Publication Survey Geological of Norway Lars Olsen, Ola Fredin & Odleiv Olesen (eds.) Lars Olsen, Ola Fredin ISBN 978-82-7385-153-6 Olsen, Fredin & Olesen (eds.) 9 788273 851536 Geological Survey of Norway Special Publication , 13 The NGU Special Publication series comprises consecutively numbered volumes containing papers and proceedings from national and international symposia or meetings dealing with Norwegian and international geology, geophysics and geochemistry; excursion guides from such symposia; and in some cases papers of particular value to the international geosciences community, or collections of thematic articles. The language of the Special Publication series is English. Series Editor: Trond Slagstad ©2013 Norges geologiske undersøkelse Published by Norges geologiske undersøkelse (Geological Survey of Norway) NO–7491 Norway All Rights reserved ISSN: 0801–5961 ISBN: 978-82-7385-153-6 Design and print: Skipnes kommunikasjon 120552/0413 Cover illustration: Jostedalsbreen ASTER false colour satellite image Contents Introduction Lars Olsen, Ola Fredin and Odleiv Olesen ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Glacial landforms and Quaternary landscape development in Norway Ola Fredin, Bjørn Bergstrøm, Raymond Eilertsen, Louise Hansen, Oddvar Longva,
    [Show full text]
  • Hospital and ICU Admission Rates in Norway
    medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.16.20155358; this version posted July 18, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license . The risk of severe COVID-19: hospital and ICU admission rates in Norway. Corresponding Author: Morten Munkvik University of Stavanger, Department of Public Health 4036 Stavanger Norway Stavanger, NO 4036 Stavanger [email protected] +47 97127969 (no fax number) Co-authors: Ingvild Vatten Alsnes University of Stavanger, Department of Public Health Kjell Arholms hus Stavanger, NO 4036 Norway +47 97787317 Lars Vatten Norwegian University of Science and Technology Department of Public Health Faculty of Medicine Trondheim, NO 7021 Norway +47 73597777 Keywords: Epidemiology Infectious Diseases Public Health NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.16.20155358; this version posted July 18, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license . The risk of severe COVID-19: hospital and ICU admission rates in Norway. Abstract Background: Epidemiological studies of COVID-19 with population based information may add to the knowledge needed to prioritise resources and advice on how restrictive measures should be targeted.
    [Show full text]
  • SNF REPORT NO 35/05 the Location of Norwegian Manufacturing
    SNF REPORT NO 35/05 The location of Norwegian manufacturing industry by Julie Riise Kolstad SNF project no. 1301 “Innovation, industrial structure and economic development: Determinants and policy design” The project is financed by the Research Council of Norway INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION BERGEN, DECEMBER 2005 © Dette eksemplar er fremstilt etter avtale med KOPINOR, Stenergate 1, 0050 Oslo Ytterligere eksemplarfremstilling uten avtale og i strid med åndsverkloven er straffbart og kan medføre erstatningsansvar. ISBN 82-491-0400-5 Printed version ISBN 82-491-0401-3 Electronic version ISSN 0803-4036 SIØS –CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS AND SHIPPING SIØS – Centre for international economics and shipping – is a joint centre for The Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration (NHH) and Institute for Research in Economics and Business Administration (SNF). The centre is responsible for research and teaching within the fields of international trade and shipping. International Trade The centre works with all types of issues related to international trade and shipping, and has particular expertise in the areas of international real economics (trade, factor mobility, economic integration and industrial policy), international macro economics and international tax policy. Research at the centre has in general been dominated by projects aiming to provide increased insight into global, structural issues and the effect of regional economic integration. However, the researchers at the centre also participate actively in projects relating to public economics, industrial policy and competition policy. International Transport International transport is another central area of research at the centre. Within this field, studies of the competition between different modes of transport in Europe and the possibilities of increasing sea transport with a view to easing the pressure on the land based transport network on the Continent have been central.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Differences in Technical Efficiency and Technological Gap of Norwegian Dairy Farms: a Stochastic Metafrontier Model
    Regional Differences in Technical Efficiency and Technological Gap of Norwegian Dairy Farms: a Stochastic Metafrontier Model Habtamu Alem1, Gudbrand Lien2, J. Brian Hardaker3, Atle Guttormsen4 1 Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Norway and Norwegian University of Life Science, Norway [email protected] 2 Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway and Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Norway [email protected] 3 University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., Australia [email protected] 4 Norwegian University of Life Science, Norway [email protected] Contribution presented at the XV EAAE Congress, “Towards Sustainable Agri-food Systems: Balancing Between Markets and Society” August 29th – September 1st, 2017 Parma, Italy Copyright 2017 by Habtamu Alem, Gudbrand Lien, J. Brian Hardaker and Atle Guttormsen. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. 1 Regional Differences in Technical Efficiency and Technological Gap of Norwegian Dairy Farms: a Stochastic Metafrontier Model Habtamu Alem, Gudbrand Lien, J. Brian Hardaker and Atle Guttormsen Abstract This paper compares technical efficiencies (TEs) and technological gap ratios (TGRs) for dairy farms in the Norwegian regions accounting for differences in working environments. We used the 'true' random effect model of Greene (2005) and the stochastic metafrontier approach by Huang et al. (2014) to estimate TEs and TGRs. The dataset used was farm-level balanced panel data for 23 years (1992-2014) with 5442 observations from 731 dairy firms. The results of the analysis provide empirical evidence of small regional differences in technical efficiencies, technological gap ratios, and input use.
    [Show full text]