Talk:Bolkestein directive/Archives/2013

"Future"?
The last line of the "Future" section currently reads as follows: The European Parliament is expected to consider the Directive sometime in October 2005. Did it? If so, what happened? If not, why not, and when will this consideration be? Loganberry (Talk) 23:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic theory
It's remarkable that there is no economic theory on this page about the Directive. It seems to me that the economic "aggregate" welfare effects" (are more diffuse, thus less visible) benefits and positive "distributive" effects that the early version would have provided, are drowned in the negative "distributive" effects (the criticism section). Aggregate effects are divided in static effects (short term effects, like lower price for consumers, more service variety, etc.) and dynamic effects (long term effects like better service, higher efficiency, more innovation, pro-competitive effects (again lower prices for consumers), significant indirect increase in employment (in East and West Europe), etc.). (See - among others - Solow's exogenous growth model, Baldwin's Induced capital formation, etc.) Positive distributive effects of course include the static effects and dynamic effects in the sectors that will benefit (in E and W-Eur). Negative distributive effects would then include significant unemployment and/or lower wages would be the result in the sectors where countries (in W and E-Eur) don't have a comparative advantage. (distributive effects could be exlained by a Specific factors model). Don't get me wrong: the distributive effects are important. This is not an attempt to diminish that importance. But the other effects are at least equally important and labour organizations aren't well known to have economic expertise (on the contrary). Furthermore it is striking that no one cited any academic research about this directive or social dumping. In reality there is for instance a strong correlation (which is already visible at a fast pace in E-Eur) between economic progress and higher social, health and environmental protection. The difference in this protection between E and W is also lower than unions claim, due to this progress. Thus if social dumping would have (even) happened in the first place, the results wouldn't have been to the extent as unions claimed they would be. (Note that there are other arguments against the fact that social dumping would have even happened) Sijo Ripa 13:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

83.32.153.217 09:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)If positive distributive effects are well known and proven on paper (it is economic theory) it is harder to find convincing proof in real world. Have UK previous "public service" improved since Thatcher's privatizations in UK? The only tangible result is in SOME cases price decrease. But at what costs?

npov
This article is largely biaised towards french souverainists (GUE-PCF, Philippe de Villiers, ...). I suggest to translate from fr:Directive Services which is much better.

Jmfayard 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

citiation
The 70% figure mentioned in the article appeared on this bbc article. Can this stand as a reference requested above?

Country of origin
The country of origin principle applies to much more than just this proposed Directive; for example, the Electronic Commerce Directive, which is not a mere proposal but actual law. I have therefore prepared a separate page on the country of origin principle, in which I attempt adherence to NPOV. Perhaps the arguably partisan explanation here should be reduced? Msahutty 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

one important reference for economic analyses
http://idei.fr/doc/wp/2005/making_sense.pdf Institut d'Economie Industrielle (IDEI): Analyses: Making sense of Bolkestein-Bashing. 27. Mai 2005

Out of date
The article is now ell out of date, focusing on the process leading to the Directive's adoption some years ago, and having nothing on its implementation by the Member States and its effect. Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)