Asia Europe Journal最新文献

In the context of globalization and internationalization, several common development trends and challenges have emerged in higher education systems around the world. These will have an impact on the individual university governance structures. Since the international university network gets an increasing importance and several university functions are shared within that network, it is crucial to take the international context into account when reshaping the university governance structure. Although several publications are dedicated to the countrywide or regional governance principles in the EU member states, it is often impossible to assimilate these global descriptions to the individual governance structure of a particular university. In this paper, we conduct case studies on five Chinese universities and five European universities from the perspective of governance structure, from four dimensions of the internal democratic nature, the external involvement, the level of centralization of decision-making authority, and the level of individual responsibility. This study analyzes the differences and commonalities between both. Chinese universities have a unified governance structure that is statutory based on the “President Responsibility System” in which the university’s party committee is officially designated to play the core role of leading the university. EU universities are more diversified in their governance principles, and each of them has its own unique features. To achieve better and deeper cooperation and collaboration between EU and Chinese universities, it is critical to understand and acknowledge these differences. Future research can add more dimensions and factors to broaden the scope of the analysis.

Abstract

Nowadays, China increasingly sees education as a critical component of becoming a world emerging power. Since 2015, China has implemented its new education strategy, named the “World first-class universities and world first-class disciplines” project. In this context, the university’s internal governance has become a critical factor for the Chinese standards to construct world first-class universities. The Chinese government has published a series of related documents to enhance university autonomy and improve external conditions with university governance’s mechanism reform. The paper firstly discusses the research statutes and proposes the analytical framework based on the stakeholder theory and quadrilateral model. Secondly, it presents the history and progress of the university’s internal governance in China and Europe and summarizes their experiences and characteristics. Thirdly, it discusses the similarities and differences between Europe and China in the universities’ internal governance, which focuses on the internal governance framework and the power distribution. In this way, the university budget and finance, teacher’s appointment and promotion, enrollment power, curriculum design, research, and even the housing and equipment assignment are all analyzed. Finally, it summarizes China and Europe’s internal governance models with the key factors and prominent features in the different models. It also discusses the common issues that the universities are facing in internal governance.

This paper assesses the economic impact of the Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (JEEPA) on all EU member states as well as Japan. The novelty of this study is that it refers to all EU countries and provides an overview of the expected output effects of JEEPA for all member states in a detailed sectoral breakdown. This impact is investigated using the Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) framework. Calculations revealed that economic returns from JEEPA vary among the EU countries. Some of the more highly developed EU countries will experience beneficial effects from tariff reductions to a greater extent than others, while some of the newer, less-developed EU members will experience losses, caused by the lower competitiveness of these countries. Beneficial effects in the EU countries are expected mainly in the primary sector industries like meat and animal products, leather, grains, and crops; while in Japan, economic gains are expected in the motor vehicle and transport equipment industries. Despite the overall optimism accompanying the signing of the JEEPA, it is worth paying attention to the sectors that are expected to shrink as a result.

This paper studies regional treatment effects of infrastructure projects on employment and transport volumes by combining quantitative econometric methods with qualitative case studies. The quantitative approach we use is the synthetic control method, which allows for the analysis of causal effects on particular treatment groups. The regions of interest in our study are Duisburg and Piraeus. Both quantitative and qualitative evidence reveal that the impact on maritime transportation in Piraeus is very significant. While the quantitative evidence shows a rather modest effect on employment before 2016, the qualitative evidence suggests a more significant effect in recent years. We interpret this as the postponed effects from infrastructure provision on various outcome variables. Moreover, we find that rail transport does not crowd out local road transport.

The formal conclusion of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investments (CAI) has drawn much criticism. Criticisms for member states did not always recognise the same critical points. The case of Italy presents an instance in which the issue rather than laying in the content of the agreement was identified in the process. Not only had Italy been marginalised in the process of negotiation that led to the conclusion of the CAI, but also exponents from the government claim that leading negotiators, amongst which France and Germany, ignored Italy’s doubts about the deal when these were raised. Beyond politics, the paper shows that the Italian business community displays a response to the agreement in line with that of the rest of the EU in its positive assessment of the outcome.

China launched an ambitious strategy known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013 with an objective to promote regional economic growth and integration. The initiative was implemented primarily through massive investment in transportation infrastructure development among the Belt and Road countries to improve transportation connectivity and reduce trade costs. While such a strategy has been implemented for more than seven years, it remains unclear to what extent the investment of transportation infrastructure has affected the regional economic performance in various countries. To clarify this question, this study provides an in-depth assessment of BRI investment in transportation infrastructure using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. Different from previous studies, the regional economic impact was evaluated through CGE simulations based on the actual investment data obtained from various sources. In addition, both the change of intraregional and interregional trade costs as a result of BRI transportation infrastructure investment was estimated. The results show that the transportation infrastructure investment in BRI has generated different impacts among regions. In particular, China, Central and West Asian countries have gained significant growth in GDP, employment, and economic welfare, whereas the economic impact of transportation infrastructure investment in the Central and West Europe is relatively minor. Overall, the research findings provide important policy implications for future transportation infrastructure investment in BRI countries and beyond.

The European Union Chamber of Commerce in China recognises the challenges in progressing the CAI, but remains convinced that the investment agreement is worthwhile and in the EU’s best interests. While not the ‘silver bullet’ that would be the ideal, the CAI meaningfully improves market access, equal treatment, and sustainability interests and should be ratified if political tensions can be ratchetted down.