Search results

Norway and Switzerland are two western Europe states that are not members of the European Union (EU), and they are among a number of small and economically open states in which reform of economic sectors is seen to be incremental and reactive. This article poses two questions about the reform of telecommunications and electricity in the two countries. First, what impact has nonmembership of the EU had on the reforms? Second, have their small and open economies and policymaking systems—conceptualized as "social corporatism" in Norway and "liberal corporatism" in Switzerland—had a decisive impact? Some influence from the EU is evident, particularly in telecommunications, but parallels with EU states indicate that nonmembership of the EU, though influential, is not decisive. Although national characteristics matter, social and liberal forms of corporatism are shown to have limited utility. The "actor‐centered institutionalism" approach, which allows a more nuanced analysis of actors and national institutions, is better at explaining the reforms.

Norway and Switzerland are two western Europe states that are not members of the European Union (EU), and they are among a number of small and economically open states in which reform of economic sectors is seen to be incremental and reactive. This article poses two questions about the reform of telecommunications and electricity in the two countries. First, what impact has nonmembership of the EU had on the reforms? Second, have their small and open economies and policymaking systems - conceptualized as "social corporatism" in Norway and "liberal corporatism" in Switzerland - had a decisive impact? Some influence from the EU is evident, particularly in telecommunications, but parallels with EU states indicate that nonmembership of the EU, though influential, is not decisive. Although national characteristics matter, social and liberal forms of corporatism are shown to have limited utility. The "actor-centered institutionalism" approach, which allows a more nuanced analysis of actors and national institutions, is better at explaining the reforms.

Many studies of privatization & liberalization in utility industries stress the importance of national institutions for reform. However, powerful transnational forces & cross-national policy convergence in telecommunications have led to a questioning of the role of institutions. Single sector studies are limited in their ability to assess the relative influence of sector-specific technical & economic forces in the policy process. This article presents a cross-sectoral & cross-national analysis of privatization & liberalization in telecommunications & electricity in Germany, France, & GB in terms of national institutions, techno-economic forces, & ideas. Although institutions shape shorter-term policy responses & the emerging regulatory regimes, in the longer term their role is limited to the pace & timing of policy change rather than its impetus & direction. To understand the latter it is necessary to investigate sources of the key ideas that led to reform. The ideas were not embedded within institutions but originated from outside as a response of interests to techno-economic forces & from groups ideologically predisposed to favoring neoliberal ideas. 76 References. Adapted from the source document.

Many studies of privatisation and liberalisation in utility industries stress the importance of national institutions for reform. However, powerful transnational forces and cross-national policy convergence in telecommunications have led to a questioning of the role of institutions. Single sector studies are limited in their ability to assess the relative influence of sector-specific technical and economic forces in the policy process. This article presents a cross-sectoral and cross-national analysis of privatisation and liberalisation in telecommunications and electricity in Germany, France and Britain in terms of national institutions, techno-economic forces and ideas. Although institutions shape shorter-term policy responses and the emerging regulatory regimes, in the longer term their role is limited to the pace and timing of policy change rather than its impetus and direction. To understand the latter it is necessary to investigate sources of the key ideas which led to reform. The ideas were not embedded within institutions but originated from outside as a response of interests to techno-economic forces and from groups ideologically predisposed to favouring neo-liberal ideas.

Presents a cross-sectoral and cross-national analysis of privatization and liberalization in telecommunications and electricity in terms of the importance and influence of national institutions, techno-economic forces, and independent ideas in the policy process.

Many studies on interest organization in the EU emphasize the influence of the EU institutional and policy context. A comparison of transnational interests in telecommunications and electricity, however, shows differences – greater transnationalization and diversity in telecommunications – which cannot easily be accounted for in these terms. The different patterns can in part be explained by differences in technical developments, but are more fully explained by differing processes of globalization. It is argued that new patterns of interest organization in the EU can only be fully understood when they are analysed in the context of sectoral globalization as well as the EU's institutions and policies.