At the beginning of 2014, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the new directive on public procurement. Inter alia, the new Directive introduces a new procedure called the innovation partnership. The availability of the new provisions maybe valuable particularly from the perspective of complex contracts, which are characterised as mixed contracts.This is because the innovation partnership has a potential to enable a contracting authority to procure complex contracts with more than one type of subject matter regarding development of innovation and its delivery. On the one hand, the innovation partnership has a potential to overcome the primary challenge and uncertainty regarding the usage of a two-stage procedure divided into pre-commercial and commercial procurement, relating to the unfair competition and the conflict of interest that may occur based on cooperation within the pre-commercial phase. On the other hand, the establishment of an innovation partnership may be seen not only as an answer to existing challenges, but also as a new way of realising the objective of a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth that characterises the Europe 2020 strategy. However, at the same time the application of the innovation partnership provisions may pose certain challenges. The aim of this article is to identify and discuss these challenges. To achieve this aim firstly, the scene for the discussion will be set by a presentation of background information. Secondly, three methods of procuring innovation will be discussed: first, the pre-commercial procurement; secondly, delivery of innovation throughout the competitive dialogue procedure; and, finally, the newly introduced innovation partnership. Thirdly, particular attention will be given to the innovation partnership provision in the Directive. Focus will be given to the proposed procedure and structure of the partnership. Fourthly, the article will consider what new solutions the new procedure introduces. Finally, the last section will conclude the discussion.
{"title":"Innovation Partnership in the New Public Procurement Regime – A Shift of Focus from Procedural to Contractual Issues?","authors":"Marta Andhov","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2910911","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2910911","url":null,"abstract":"At the beginning of 2014, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the new directive on public procurement. Inter alia, the new Directive introduces a new procedure called the innovation partnership. The availability of the new provisions maybe valuable particularly from the perspective of complex contracts, which are characterised as mixed contracts.This is because the innovation partnership has a potential to enable a contracting authority to procure complex contracts with more than one type of subject matter regarding development of innovation and its delivery. \u0000On the one hand, the innovation partnership has a potential to overcome the primary challenge and uncertainty regarding the usage of a two-stage procedure divided into pre-commercial and commercial procurement, relating to the unfair competition and the conflict of interest that may occur based on cooperation within the pre-commercial phase. On the other hand, the establishment of an innovation partnership may be seen not only as an answer to existing challenges, but also as a new way of realising the objective of a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth that characterises the Europe 2020 strategy. However, at the same time the application of the innovation partnership provisions may pose certain challenges. The aim of this article is to identify and discuss these challenges. \u0000To achieve this aim firstly, the scene for the discussion will be set by a presentation of background information. Secondly, three methods of procuring innovation will be discussed: first, the pre-commercial procurement; secondly, delivery of innovation throughout the competitive dialogue procedure; and, finally, the newly introduced innovation partnership. Thirdly, particular attention will be given to the innovation partnership provision in the Directive. Focus will be given to the proposed procedure and structure of the partnership. Fourthly, the article will consider what new solutions the new procedure introduces. Finally, the last section will conclude the discussion.","PeriodicalId":340197,"journal":{"name":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115197086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Spanish Abstract: El documento presenta una revision de la literatura sobre empresas publicas y regulacion, con el objetivo de establecer las caracteristicas fundamentales que deberia contener esta ultima para atender a las particularidades de dichas empresas. Identificar las diferencias entre empresas publicas y privadas permite afinar su regulacion para inducir la eficiencia de las primeras y establecer un marco competitivo balanceado para ambas en los mercados en las que operan como competidoras. Dos aspectos diferencian a las empresas publicas de las privadas: responden a multiples principales, lo que las lleva a tener multiples objetivos y operan bajo un regimen implicito de restricciones blandas. Si a esto se agrega que tienden a actuar en mercados monopolicos, el resultado lleva a poner el enfasis en su eficiencia economica. Por lo tanto la regulacion para inducir un comportamiento eficiente resulta un instrumento complementario y no sustitutivo de la propiedad publica.English Abstract: The paper reviews the literature on public enterprises and regulation, in order to establish the main characteristics of the regulation framework to meet the particularities of these enterprises. Differences between public and private enterprises imply that regulation should be designed in order to induce the efficiency of public firms and establish a balanced competitive framework for both in the markets in which they compete. Two features differentiate public enterprises from private ones: they respond to multiple principals, which leads them to have multiple objectives; and operate under an implicit scheme of soft budget constraints. Also, as they tend to operate mainly in monopolistic markets, this differences leads to emphasize the role of economic efficiency. Therefore regulation of public firms to induce efficient behavior is a complementary tool, not a substitute of public property.
{"title":"La Regulación De Servicios Públicos: El Rol De La Propiedad (The Regulation of Public Services: The Role of Property)","authors":"R. Domingo, Leandro Zipitría","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2550558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2550558","url":null,"abstract":"Spanish Abstract: El documento presenta una revision de la literatura sobre empresas publicas y regulacion, con el objetivo de establecer las caracteristicas fundamentales que deberia contener esta ultima para atender a las particularidades de dichas empresas. Identificar las diferencias entre empresas publicas y privadas permite afinar su regulacion para inducir la eficiencia de las primeras y establecer un marco competitivo balanceado para ambas en los mercados en las que operan como competidoras. Dos aspectos diferencian a las empresas publicas de las privadas: responden a multiples principales, lo que las lleva a tener multiples objetivos y operan bajo un regimen implicito de restricciones blandas. Si a esto se agrega que tienden a actuar en mercados monopolicos, el resultado lleva a poner el enfasis en su eficiencia economica. Por lo tanto la regulacion para inducir un comportamiento eficiente resulta un instrumento complementario y no sustitutivo de la propiedad publica.English Abstract: The paper reviews the literature on public enterprises and regulation, in order to establish the main characteristics of the regulation framework to meet the particularities of these enterprises. Differences between public and private enterprises imply that regulation should be designed in order to induce the efficiency of public firms and establish a balanced competitive framework for both in the markets in which they compete. Two features differentiate public enterprises from private ones: they respond to multiple principals, which leads them to have multiple objectives; and operate under an implicit scheme of soft budget constraints. Also, as they tend to operate mainly in monopolistic markets, this differences leads to emphasize the role of economic efficiency. Therefore regulation of public firms to induce efficient behavior is a complementary tool, not a substitute of public property.","PeriodicalId":340197,"journal":{"name":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116516883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper analyses the trade-off between price distortions and reduced volatility when governments intervened in agricultural and food markets during the recent food price spikes. We develop a model to derive how much distortions a government would introduce when it cares about price stability in a situation with limited policy options. We show that there is a trade-off and identify the optimal combination of distortions and stability for given international price shocks and interest groups preferences for stability. We compare these theoretical findings with empirical indicators on actual government interventions in staple food markets. We find that several countries have been able to reduce (short run) price volatility in the domestic markets while at the same time allowing structural (medium and long term) price changes to pass through to producers and consumers. However, this is not the general case. For many countries, even when explicitly taking into account the trade-off (and the benefits of reducing volatility) government policies appear far removed from the optimal trade-off and there appears to be much room for policy improvement.
{"title":"Trading-Off Volatility and Distortions? Food Policy During Price Spikes","authors":"Hannah Pieters, J. Swinnen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2533975","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2533975","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses the trade-off between price distortions and reduced volatility when governments intervened in agricultural and food markets during the recent food price spikes. We develop a model to derive how much distortions a government would introduce when it cares about price stability in a situation with limited policy options. We show that there is a trade-off and identify the optimal combination of distortions and stability for given international price shocks and interest groups preferences for stability. We compare these theoretical findings with empirical indicators on actual government interventions in staple food markets. We find that several countries have been able to reduce (short run) price volatility in the domestic markets while at the same time allowing structural (medium and long term) price changes to pass through to producers and consumers. However, this is not the general case. For many countries, even when explicitly taking into account the trade-off (and the benefits of reducing volatility) government policies appear far removed from the optimal trade-off and there appears to be much room for policy improvement.","PeriodicalId":340197,"journal":{"name":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132230125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Canada needs a better and faster payments system, according to a report from the C.D. Howe Institute. In “A Speedier and More Efficient Payments System for Canada,” author Mati Dubrovinsky finds that the Canadian economy would benefit from an upgraded payments system that creates lower financial risk, lower payment-processing costs for businesses and, as a consequence, makes Canadian businesses more competitive globally.
{"title":"A Speedier and More Efficient Payments System for Canada","authors":"Mati Dubrovinsky","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2529131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2529131","url":null,"abstract":"Canada needs a better and faster payments system, according to a report from the C.D. Howe Institute. In “A Speedier and More Efficient Payments System for Canada,” author Mati Dubrovinsky finds that the Canadian economy would benefit from an upgraded payments system that creates lower financial risk, lower payment-processing costs for businesses and, as a consequence, makes Canadian businesses more competitive globally.","PeriodicalId":340197,"journal":{"name":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114541389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Verginia Vedinaş, M. Apostolache, G. Vasilescu, M. Andreescu, Eufemia Vieriu, N. Diaconu, Dumitru Vieriu, M. Apostolache
The Journal is edited by the Centre for Studies and Legal and Socio-Administrative Research (CSCJSA) within the "Petroleum Gas" University of Ploiestit through the Publishing House Petroleum and Gas University of Ploiesti and comprises articles, studies and reviews in the legal and socio-administrative domains. A significant part of the articles published focuses on European issues. The Journal appears in on-line format. The articles are published in the English language.
{"title":"Journal of Law and Administrative Sciences No.1/2014","authors":"Verginia Vedinaş, M. Apostolache, G. Vasilescu, M. Andreescu, Eufemia Vieriu, N. Diaconu, Dumitru Vieriu, M. Apostolache","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2515846","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2515846","url":null,"abstract":"The Journal is edited by the Centre for Studies and Legal and Socio-Administrative Research (CSCJSA) within the \"Petroleum Gas\" University of Ploiestit through the Publishing House Petroleum and Gas University of Ploiesti and comprises articles, studies and reviews in the legal and socio-administrative domains. A significant part of the articles published focuses on European issues. The Journal appears in on-line format. The articles are published in the English language.","PeriodicalId":340197,"journal":{"name":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"327 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115966293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") and Regulation 1/2003 mandate the Commission to seek compliance with the competition rules through the imposition of fines that have deterrent effect. Deterrence is to be pursued subject to Article 49(3) of the Charter, which prohibits fines that are disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement. This contribution attempts to articulate a principled test for assessing compliance with Article 49(3). The current case law of the European Courts makes it difficult to fully apply that provision: the Courts have identified the relevant factors for the assessment of gravity but have not clarified the respective weight of these factors, and neither have the Courts indicated which fine level corresponds to a given degree of gravity. Pending such clarifications, the proportionality principle as expressed in the Charter would seem to prohibit the imposition of fines of an amount that the offender is unable to pay. I also conclude that the Commission's Fining Guidelines may not be compatible with the Charter to the extent they allow for increases of the basic fine amount for undertakings with a large turnover beyond the cartelized sales, and for improper gains.
{"title":"Proportionality of EU Competition Fines: Proposal for a Principled Discussion","authors":"H. Gilliams","doi":"10.54648/woco2014043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2014043","url":null,"abstract":"The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (\"TFEU\") and Regulation 1/2003 mandate the Commission to seek compliance with the competition rules through the imposition of fines that have deterrent effect. Deterrence is to be pursued subject to Article 49(3) of the Charter, which prohibits fines that are disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement. This contribution attempts to articulate a principled test for assessing compliance with Article 49(3). The current case law of the European Courts makes it difficult to fully apply that provision: the Courts have identified the relevant factors for the assessment of gravity but have not clarified the respective weight of these factors, and neither have the Courts indicated which fine level corresponds to a given degree of gravity. Pending such clarifications, the proportionality principle as expressed in the Charter would seem to prohibit the imposition of fines of an amount that the offender is unable to pay. I also conclude that the Commission's Fining Guidelines may not be compatible with the Charter to the extent they allow for increases of the basic fine amount for undertakings with a large turnover beyond the cartelized sales, and for improper gains.","PeriodicalId":340197,"journal":{"name":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126893670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the research we have developed a conceptual framework and practical recommendations for the implementation of the administrative reform in Russia, the implementation of which is a priority for improving governance. The implementation of the reform in Russia should lead to reduction of excessive state regulation, increase in the quality of public services to citizens and organizations, increase the efficiency of public authorities and information transparency. In this research we have studied and systematized international experience of public and municipal services, we analyzed the international experience of the administrative reform, studied the mechanism of improving the quality of public services and reducing excessive government regulation. We have identified factors that influence the efficiency of the authorities and transparency and made proposals to improve public governance in Russia.
{"title":"Перспективы Развития Административной Реформы в России (Prospects for the Development of Administrative Reform in Russia)","authors":"G. Ivleva, Аndrey Gоlubev, P. Goncharov","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2473946","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2473946","url":null,"abstract":"In the research we have developed a conceptual framework and practical recommendations for the implementation of the administrative reform in Russia, the implementation of which is a priority for improving governance. The implementation of the reform in Russia should lead to reduction of excessive state regulation, increase in the quality of public services to citizens and organizations, increase the efficiency of public authorities and information transparency. In this research we have studied and systematized international experience of public and municipal services, we analyzed the international experience of the administrative reform, studied the mechanism of improving the quality of public services and reducing excessive government regulation. We have identified factors that influence the efficiency of the authorities and transparency and made proposals to improve public governance in Russia.","PeriodicalId":340197,"journal":{"name":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117240224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the Netherlands, the administrative law system is traditionally seen as best suited for dealing with public interest-related lawsuits. Especially in the field of environmental law, NGOs seeking to promote broader environmental interests regularly initiate judicial procedures before administrative courts in order to challenge land-use plans, environmental permits and other types of public orders that may have adverse impacts on local natural habitats and/or the environment more generally. However, over the past five years a number of developments have resulted in a more restricted access to administrative courts for environmental NGOs. It has been suggested that these developments may result in an increased reliance on public interest-related procedures before civil courts. This raises the question of what position public interest-related claims, like those against Shell for oil pollution in the Niger Delta and those against the Dutch government for its alleged failure to implement adequate climate change policies, currently have within the Dutch system of civil procedure. It also raises the question whether environmental NGOs in practice do have the broad access to Dutch courts that is required by international obligations, and whether room for improvement should perhaps be sought in the civil law domain.
{"title":"Public Interest Litigation in the Netherlands – A Multidimensional Take on the Promotion of Environmental Interests by Private Parties Through the Courts","authors":"Berthy van den Broek, L. Enneking","doi":"10.18352/ULR.285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18352/ULR.285","url":null,"abstract":"In the Netherlands, the administrative law system is traditionally seen as best suited for dealing with public interest-related lawsuits. Especially in the field of environmental law, NGOs seeking to promote broader environmental interests regularly initiate judicial procedures before administrative courts in order to challenge land-use plans, environmental permits and other types of public orders that may have adverse impacts on local natural habitats and/or the environment more generally. However, over the past five years a number of developments have resulted in a more restricted access to administrative courts for environmental NGOs. It has been suggested that these developments may result in an increased reliance on public interest-related procedures before civil courts. This raises the question of what position public interest-related claims, like those against Shell for oil pollution in the Niger Delta and those against the Dutch government for its alleged failure to implement adequate climate change policies, currently have within the Dutch system of civil procedure. It also raises the question whether environmental NGOs in practice do have the broad access to Dutch courts that is required by international obligations, and whether room for improvement should perhaps be sought in the civil law domain.","PeriodicalId":340197,"journal":{"name":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126817454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Yakov Nikolaevich Dranev, Boris N. Kuznetsov, M. Kuzyk, E. Pogrebnyak, Yu. Simachev
Russian Abstract: Вопросы построения промышленной политики, как концептуальные, так и практические, привлекали и привлекают к себе внимание и экспертов, и политиков. В 2000-е годы, особенно после мирового финансового кризиса и в период сохраняющихся неясных перспектив дальнейшего развития, обсуждение лучших практик, причин неудач, возможностей и особенностей «новой» промышленной политики стало весьма популярным и в странах с развитой экономикой, и в развивающихся странах. Тема формирования и реализации государственной промышленной политики в России приобрела особую актуальность в последние годы, когда очевидной стала необходимость перехода на инновационную модель развития. Дополнительный импульс данной теме придали недавние обсуждения на высшем политическом уровне вопросов диверсификации российской экономики, значимого повышения в ней доли высокотехнологичных отраслей, массового создания высокопроизводительных рабочих мест в традиционных и новых секторах.Данное исследование направлено на анализ эволюции государственной промышленной политики России, изучение отдельных примеров ее применения и определение уроков на будущее.English Abstract: Questions of construction of industrial policy, both conceptual and practical, attracted and attract attention to themselves and experts and politicians. In the 2000s, especially after the global financial crisis and the period remaining uncertain prospects for further development, a discussion of best practices, reasons for failure, capabilities and features of the "new" industrial policy has become quite popular in developed economies and developing countries.Subject formation and implementation of state industrial policy in Russia has become particularly relevant in recent years, as has become apparent need for a transition to an innovative model of development. Additional impetus to this topic given the recent discussions at the highest political level issues diversification of the Russian economy, the significant increase in its share of high-tech industries, creating high mass of jobs in traditional and new sectors.This study aims to analyze the evolution of the state industrial policy of Russia, the study of individual examples of its use and definition of lessons for the future.
{"title":"Опыт Реализации Промышленной Политики в Российской Федерации в 2000-2012 Гг.: Институциональные Особенности, Группы Интересов, Основные Уроки (Experience in Implementing Industrial Policy in the Russian Federation in 2000-2012: Institutional Features, Interest Groups, Main Lessons)","authors":"Yakov Nikolaevich Dranev, Boris N. Kuznetsov, M. Kuzyk, E. Pogrebnyak, Yu. Simachev","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2443928","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2443928","url":null,"abstract":"Russian Abstract: Вопросы построения промышленной политики, как концептуальные, так и практические, привлекали и привлекают к себе внимание и экспертов, и политиков. В 2000-е годы, особенно после мирового финансового кризиса и в период сохраняющихся неясных перспектив дальнейшего развития, обсуждение лучших практик, причин неудач, возможностей и особенностей «новой» промышленной политики стало весьма популярным и в странах с развитой экономикой, и в развивающихся странах. Тема формирования и реализации государственной промышленной политики в России приобрела особую актуальность в последние годы, когда очевидной стала необходимость перехода на инновационную модель развития. Дополнительный импульс данной теме придали недавние обсуждения на высшем политическом уровне вопросов диверсификации российской экономики, значимого повышения в ней доли высокотехнологичных отраслей, массового создания высокопроизводительных рабочих мест в традиционных и новых секторах.Данное исследование направлено на анализ эволюции государственной промышленной политики России, изучение отдельных примеров ее применения и определение уроков на будущее.English Abstract: Questions of construction of industrial policy, both conceptual and practical, attracted and attract attention to themselves and experts and politicians. In the 2000s, especially after the global financial crisis and the period remaining uncertain prospects for further development, a discussion of best practices, reasons for failure, capabilities and features of the \"new\" industrial policy has become quite popular in developed economies and developing countries.Subject formation and implementation of state industrial policy in Russia has become particularly relevant in recent years, as has become apparent need for a transition to an innovative model of development. Additional impetus to this topic given the recent discussions at the highest political level issues diversification of the Russian economy, the significant increase in its share of high-tech industries, creating high mass of jobs in traditional and new sectors.This study aims to analyze the evolution of the state industrial policy of Russia, the study of individual examples of its use and definition of lessons for the future.","PeriodicalId":340197,"journal":{"name":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127265071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Public contracts – also referred to as government procurement or public purchase – are contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between one or more economic operators and one or more authorities and having as their object the execution of works, the supply of products or the provision of services. As the State itself acquires these goods, services or works on markets, it shall be ensured that these purchases do not distort competition between the (potentially) participating undertakings. Within market economies, proper competition – supply and demand of a certain good or service within a relevant market and at a specific time – needs to be ensured, thus, it also addresses the demand of authorities, which is expressed in the provisions of the award of contracts.Present essay will introduce to the provisions of EU primary legislation governing public procurement and contextualise these norms with relevant secondary legislation to explain the aim of common provisions on public procurement.
{"title":"Legal Foundations of European Union Laws on Public Procurement","authors":"T. Holland","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2749597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2749597","url":null,"abstract":"Public contracts – also referred to as government procurement or public purchase – are contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between one or more economic operators and one or more authorities and having as their object the execution of works, the supply of products or the provision of services. As the State itself acquires these goods, services or works on markets, it shall be ensured that these purchases do not distort competition between the (potentially) participating undertakings. Within market economies, proper competition – supply and demand of a certain good or service within a relevant market and at a specific time – needs to be ensured, thus, it also addresses the demand of authorities, which is expressed in the provisions of the award of contracts.Present essay will introduce to the provisions of EU primary legislation governing public procurement and contextualise these norms with relevant secondary legislation to explain the aim of common provisions on public procurement.","PeriodicalId":340197,"journal":{"name":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132612343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：