Bøger af Andrea Daniel

Essay aus dem Jahr 2009 im Fachbereich Politik - Politische Systeme allgemein und im Vergleich, Note: A, South Bank University London (Faculty of Art and Human Sciences), Veranstaltung: European Policy - Seminar "Comparative Analysis", Sprache: Deutsch, Abstract: After investigating the active employment measures of the United Kingdom and Germany as well as their reforms of the Employment Services since the creation of the European Employment Strategy in1997, it can be said that Germany adapted huge parts of the British system. The British set the European Employment Strategy¿s agenda and extended their policy model to the European level. Via the European Employment Strategy, the British system significantly changed the German one from a highly protective to a liberal model. The German state transferred the responsibility for protection from employment related ¿common risks of life¿ to the citizens, reducing its own measures to supporting services and a mere ¿guarantee of survival¿.Although this convergence of Employment Policy was caused by the European Employment Strategy, it did not contribute to the merging of a unified European Employment Policy or to a public awareness of the European Union¿s role in this policy area. While Germany obviously respected the European Employment Strategy as a ¿superior guidance¿ and treated it as a self standing ¿European Policy¿, the British used it to extend the reach of their national policies. A real integration of national policies intoan EU-policy did not happen. In the United Kingdom as well as in Germany, the reforms of the employment policies have not been determined and implemented in a process of broad public participation but mostly as a ¿top-down¿ process, with decisions made by a professional elite. The European Employment Strategy with its set of policy methods (Open Methods of Cooperation) hadnot been able to reach its goals of a more democratic policy making and more public awareness of an independent role of the European Union in employment policy.

Andrea Daniel not only compares headquarters and subsidiary managers¿ perceptions of a subsidiary¿s role, but she analyzes the implications of perception gaps for the headquarters-subsidiary relationship.