Global Positioning of France, Germany and Greece from 1998

Global Positioning of France, Germany and Greece from

1998 until 2007

Nikitas-Spiros Koutsoukis, Assistant Professor, Democritus University of Thrace,

Department of International Economic Relations & Development.

Spyros Roukanas,1

Visiting Lecturer, Democritus University of Thrace, Department of International

Economic Relations & Development.

Pantelis Sklias,

Assosiate Professor, University of Peloponnese, Department of Political Science &

International Relations.

1 Contact author: Roukanas Spyros, University Campus, Komotini, P.C: 69100.

Tel. 25310 39819, Fax. 25310 39830, Email: [email protected]

732

2

Abstract

Contemporary relations between nation-states are shifting the emphasis from

geopolitical sovereignty and across-the-border relations to a novel domain of relative

(as opposed to adjacent) positioning. That is, nation-states find themselves interacting

in a fast-evolving, dynamic setting like the one being shaped by the multitude of

forces interacting in the globalization area. This shift poses important challenges to

the otherwise linear and slow-response decision making mechanisms and decision

makers at the state administration level(s) to adopt new reflexes that will enable them

to lead their constituencies successfully in the highly dynamic increasingly complex

global arena. In this paper we identify some key attributes of relative positioning in

the multinational EU setting. We draw upon empirical data for France, Germany and

Greece to perform a comparative analysis and make some interesting observations in

the context of relative positioning.

Keywords:

globalization, nation-state relations, international relations, international political

economy, analytic framework.

733

3

1 Introduction

In this paper we are using an analytical framework to assess the relative

positioning of France, Germany and Greece within a broader, ‘globalised’ context.

We use the term(s) “relative,” “global,” or “relative global” positioning to refer to

similarities or differences between nation states in an International Political Economy

(IPE) context. In this notion of global positioning, we maintain the view that

contemporary nation states are progressively redefining their role, from mostly

guarding national sovereignty to mostly leading and administering interaction with

other nations and states in multiple contexts, including Economic, Political, Social,

Technological interactions (Stiglitz 2003; Sarooshi 2004). From this perspective

contemporary nation states act less as geopolitical guardians and more as market

regulators and international liaise points for their constituencies; i.e. as facilitators for

the interaction of their state with other states (Moreau 2004). Of course, geopolitical

characteristics are still important attributes, and play a key role in a nation-state’s

overall characteristics; however, the geopolitical role is profoundly diminishing due to

international and more and more globalised markets, international and global

institutions, technology reach, and cultural influence interchanges. This evolving role

of the state is to be anticipated given that continuous development cannot be self

sustained within a(ny) single state (Inoguchi and Bacon 2006).

In order to capture this interaction we are developing an analytical framework that

will progressively allow us to identify the relative global positioning of different

states and to pinpoint with sufficient accuracy key interactions that take place in the

globalised arena between a given nation state and its (internal or external)

environment, including other states. Thus far, we are using the framework to capture

snapshots of state-level indicators which, we believe, portray important state-level

characteristics that affect this ‘relative’ positioning in two different dimensions: The

State-Market dimension and the National-International dimension. In the first

dimension, the State extreme represents the inherent relation between politics and

economics, whereby state-level decision making solely defines market operation and

thus all aspects of nation-wide prosperity and development, whereas the Market

extreme represents a completely self-regulated market economy which dynamically

drives national prosperity and economic growth. It follows that, in practice, any given 734

4

Nation-State balances at some level between the two extremes of state and market.

Similarly, in the National-International dimension, the National extreme represents a

completely self-contained economy without international interaction, or a “closed”

economy, and the International extreme represents a completely international or

“open” economy in macroeconomic terms (e.g. Mankiw 1997). Again, for all

practical purposes, any given nation will be balancing somewhere between the two

extremes, of national and international.

In this paper we take into consideration a paradigm array of such state-level

indicators and look at consecutive snapshots for three European Union (EU) states:

France, Germany and Greece, between 1998 and 2007 and draw a comparative

analysis on the basis of our framework. The rest of this paper is organized in the

following way: In Section 2 we present briefly the main constructs and reasoning of

the analytical framework. In Section 3 we consider a set of indicators and their

interaction/relationships in the context of the framework, applied to three countries:

France, Germany and Greece. In Section 4 we discuss these preliminary findings and

outline future directions for this research.

2 An Analytical Framework for capturing relative

positioning.

Along the State-Market and National-International dimensions we consider two

main tendencies or directions or forces, which affect State-level decision making and

through it, the relative global positioning of a state through time. “Introversion” is the

tendency of a state to be more closed to interacting with other states; “Extroversion”

is the tendency of a state to be more open in interacting with other states. These two

forces are influenced by a number of factors, internal and external to the state,

originating in all aspects of social, economic, political and technological activity.

Thus, although an aggregate introversion and extroversion tendency may be identified

for a given State, the ‘character’ of this introversion and extroversion equilibrium may

be radically different, once the aggregate tendency is drilled down to its various

constructs, until a practical limit is reached for the type of analysis being performed,

of course.

735

5

From our perspective, a State’s balance along these (or other) ‘globalised’

indicators or dimensions indicates the outcomes of dynamic decision-making taking

place at the state level. Further, we consider state-level decision-making outputs to be

due to the influence of a multitude of factors, internal and external to the state. Or, to

reverse our point, we support the view that global integration can be the result of

deliberate policy making and supervised policy implementation. A systemic view of

the framework is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Systemic view of the Analytical framework

Taking into consideration the two dimensions of the analytical framework, and the

tendencies of introversion and extroversion, it is easy to realize that a given state

boundary is constantly repositioned via the outcomes of State-level decision making

(or the lack of). Further, a state may exhibit different levels of introversion or

extroversion along different sets of activities. China, for instance, appears extrovert in

its role as an industrial production state (i.e. “made in china”), but introvert in its

international economics agenda and national politics (e.g. China’s position against the

External environmentOther states, International events, Political, Economic, Social, Cultural, Technological, other events and factors

Internal environmentPolitical Pressure Groups, Nationally-contained events, Political, Economic, other events and factors

State-Boundary

State-level Decision Making

(External) Influence inside the state

Influence outside the state

Influence on the state boundary

Influence on the state boundary

Without influence on the State or State boundary

Without influence on the State boundary or outside the state

Extroversion Introversion

736

6

US dollar and censorship in Google and other search engines)2. Collectively,

however, the complete set of introversion and extroversion tendencies for a set of

multiple interactions (i.e. political, economical, social, and others) portrays the state

boundary with sufficient accuracy to portray the ‘true’ status of a state’s global

positioning, and even comparatively to other states. An illustration of this type of

analysis is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Illustration of State Introversion and Extroversion equilibria

In Figure 2 the “perfect” circles represent ‘romantic’ views of a globalised state,

that is, a state that is well balanced, though introvert or extrovert, in all of its activities

within the international/global domain(s). The polygonal shape, on the other hand,

represents a pragmatist’s view, where a state’s introversion and extroversion is

unequally balanced throughout its activities in the global setting. It is easily seen that

more complex shapes are to be expected as the level of detail in the analysis increases,

and more factors or indicators are taken into account. Also, a state’s positioning will

2 For instance China see Andrew Watson’s commentary in “China takes aim at dollar,” The Wall Street

Journal, March 24, 2009 (Online: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123780272456212885.html), and

Jeannie Nuss’s report in “Web site tracks world online censorship reports” August 6, 2009 reporting on

behalf of the Associated Press (Online: http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=68224 )

among many other similar news headlines and analyses.

Self-sustained, Market Dominated

Internationally-based Market Dominated

Internationally-based State DominatedSelf-sustained

State DominatedState

Market

InternationalNational

An ideally-balanced state with ‘healthy’ interaction between State, Market, National and International activities

A balanced state favouring Market-oriented and International activities

A state leaning towards self-sustained and State dominated activities but also with a strong international tendency

737

7

most likely shift, change shape, or both, with the passing of time, due to external or

internal (to the state boundary) influences. The shifts and shape changes may be sharp

or smooth depending on the time scale considered (e.g. months, quarters, years,

cabinet shuffles) or the occurrence of significant events that stimulate such changes

(e.g. EU’s Lisbon Strategy is an initiation point for a ‘slow’ change in EU member

states, whereas the current economic crisis is an initiation point for a fast-paced

response and change throughout most of the world). This type of analysis can form

the basis for capturing state-level decision making performance in a variety of

contexts, and subsequently supporting these decision-making activities by adopting

and applying strategy tools like the Balanced Scorecard or other planning and

decision making tools found, for example, in the Operational Research arsenal for

decision support.

We are aware that this is an ambitious research agenda and we are still in the

process of developing this framework. For the time being, our efforts are focused on

identifying the set(s) of indicators that will allow us to capture snapshots of state-level

making outputs or performance, which indicate the relative positioning of different

states according to our framework. We anticipate that eventually we will be in a

position to relate these outputs with a cause and effect relationship to specific

decisions at the state-level. We discuss some of the main challenges and difficulties of

developing the framework in the concluding section, later in this paper, and proceed

to illustrate how we are initializing the application of the framework thus far.

3 Illustrative framework instantiation and

implementation

While pertaining to our goal of capturing state-level decision-making, our

framework unavoidably bears a number of similarities with the constituent elements

of the two globalization indices considered above, namely the dimensions of

capturing global positioning and a some of the individual indicators used by KOF and

CSGR (KOF 2009; Drehel et al. 2008; CSGR 2009; Lockwood and Redoano 2005).

However, we are pursuing an altogether different agenda: (1) We seek to capture state

level output(s) that are directly influenced by state-level decision making. (2) Through

the use of the IPE-inspired dimensions mentioned previously, we adopt a 738

8

decomposition approach, whereby introversion or extroversion indicate qualitative as

well as quantitative characteristics of the level of Global integration achieved,

according to different criteria and as a result of state level decision-making. (3) The

dimensions are considered mostly as generic (dis-)aggregation paths for monitoring a

wide range of macro or micro activities, instead of an aggregate Globalisation score.

Overall, we believe that, this decomposed view will prove itself useful mostly for

decision support purposes at the state-level planning and policy making echelons.

For the purposes of this paper we have identified a number of global

positioning indicators which can be used in the context of the framework. We have

grouped these indicators in the following way: First, we identified the indicators

which show a tendency towards one of the four extremes but grouped in pairs of

functional equivalents (or ‘opposites’). That is indicators which identify the

corresponding competing tendencies towards the extremes along either dimension, but

not in both. Second, we are performing the same analysis with an indicator which

naturally fits the two dimensions and shows the competing tendencies towards all four

extremes. For each indicator comparison we discuss our main observations and

findings each time.

3.1 Bidirectional indicator pairs

The functional bidirectional indicator pairs combine indicators which show opposing

tendencies towards the dimension extremes. Effort was put in pinpointing directly

comparable indicators; however some functional pairs include indicators that are not

directly comparable because they represent different state characteristics. In both

cases, however, we are looking at apparent long-term trends or shifts in the values of

these indicators due to state-level decision-making and its internal or external

influences.

3.1.1 State-Market dimension

The bi-directional indicators in the State-Market dimension are outlined in

functional pairs in Table 1.

739

Table 1. Indicator pairs in the State-Market dimension

Towards the Market extreme Towards the State extreme

Indicator Units/Scale Comment Indicator Units/Scale Comment

Index of Economic

Freedom

(IFE)

Score (%) Measures the freedom of individuals to produce,

work, invest and consume. This freedom must

be protected by the state and at the same time

must be unconstrained by the state (Miller and

Holmes, 2009). The direction of this indicator under the prism of the framework is towards the

market extreme

Political

pressure groups

and leaders

(PPG)

Count Refers to social, political, religious or labor

organizations of a country that are involved in

politics, or that exert political pressure. The leaders

of these groups do not stand for legislative election

(CIA Fact book, 2009b). PPGL indicates a state orientation

% of individuals

using Internet for

interaction with

public authorities

(IIPA)

% of

population

The interaction of individuals with public

authorities constitutes reduction of cost both for

individuals and public authorities (Eurostat,

2009b). This term has a profound market

orientation.

Corruption

Perceptions

Index (CPI)

Score (0-10) corruption is defined as the abuse of public office

for private gain and focuses in the public sector,

showing a state orientation (Transparency

International, 2009). A higher score shows less

perceived corruption.

740

10

For each of these pairs we have obtained the data for the years 1998-2007.

For brevity purposes we have isolated the indicators in three-year intervals, i.e. for the

years 1998, 2001, 2004, and 2007.

In Table 2 we list the data obtained for the indicator pair: Index of Economic

Freedom (IFE) and Political Pressure Groups and Leaders (PPG).

Table 2. IFE vs PPG

Indicator Year France Germany Greece

1998 58.9 64.3 60.6

2001 58 69.5 63.4

2004 60.9 69.5 63.4

IFE

2007 62.1 70.8 58.7

1998 5 None reported 3



PPG


In France, the large number of PPGs appears to also have an influence on

economic freedom, which results to a higher degree of introversion than in the other

countries. A similar effect can be observed in Greece where the PPG is steady through

time, and economic freedom is higher but almost on par with France. On the other

hand Germany has no reported PPGs according to our data source which seems to be

functioning positively towards economic freedom. Thus, the data points to an

introversion tendency for France and Greece, but not so for Germany.

In Table 3 we list the data obtained for the indicator pair: Individuals using

Internet for interaction with public authorities (IIPA) and Corruption Perception Index

(CPI).

Table 3. IIPA vs CPI


1998 No data No data No data


2004 No data 31% 7%

IIPA

2007 37% 39% 9%

CPI 1998 6.7 7.9 4.9 741

11

2001 6.7 7.4 4.2

2004 7.1 8.2 4.3

2008 7.3 7.8 4.6

Despite the lack of data for most of the time periods, it is easily seen that

France and Germany have a high percentage of people using the internet for their

transactions with public authorities, and a better CPI score. Greece on the other hand

has a high CPI score which also coincides with a low level of using the internet with

public authorities. Between the three nation-states Greece appears to be more

introvert, since it lacks the level of transparency to the other two countries and implies

that personal interaction with the public authorities is a more prominent of state-

market interaction.

3.1.2 National-International dimension

The bi-directional indicators in the National-International dimension are

outlined in functional pairs in Table 4.

742

12

Table 4. Indicator pairs in the National-International dimension

Towards the Market extreme Towards the State extreme

Indicator Units/Scale Comment Indicator Units/Scale Comment

Law, order and

defense expenditure

(LODE)

% of GDP,

national

accounts

Shows sources allocated for the intelligence

services, police forces, the judicial system,

prisons and other correctional facilities, and

ministries of internal affairs. Influences the

internal and external stability of a state and

hence has a national orientation (OECD Fact

book, 2009a).

Peacekeeping

Financial

Contributions

% of GDP An instrument that helps countries to torn by

conflict and also creates the conditions for lasting

peace. This instrument has been developed by

United Nations (United Nations, 2009a). The

indicator has an international direction as it is

contributes to international peace.

Outgoing Students

(OS)

Count

(1000s)

Increasing numbers show limited or insufficient

state-level education quality or infrastructure

(Eurostat 2009c).

Incoming

Foreign Students

Count

(1000s)

Increasing numbers show state-level education

infrastructure with international recognition

(Eurostat 2009c).

Net migration rate %/1000 inhabitants

A negative rate shows that more people leave the state, and hence a national direction (OECD,

2009b).

Net migration rate

%/1000 inhabitants

A positive rate shows that more people enter the state, and hence an international direction (OECD,

2009b)

743

13

Like in the State-Market dimension, for each of these pairs we have obtained

the data for the years 1998-2007. For brevity purposes we have isolated the indicators

in three-year intervals, i.e. for the years 1998, 2001, 2004, and 2007.

In Table 5 we list the data obtained for the indicator pair: Law, order and

defense expenditure (LODE) and Peacekeeping Financial Contributions (PFC).

Table 5. LODE vs PFC


1998 3.5 2.9 2.9

2001 3.3 2.7 4.5

2004 3.3 2.7 4.0

LODE

2007 3.0 2.6 No data

1998 0.00489 .00402 .00206

2001 0.01866 .01592 .01353

2004 0.01703 .01505 .01225

PFC


Between the three countries, Greece is again more introvert, since it spends

more on LODE and less on PFC. Although the higher LODE expenditure can be

justified partly by the location of Greece and its relations with its immediate

neighbouring countries, the introversion indication remains.

In Table 6 we list the data obtained for the indicator pair: Outgoing Students

(OS) and Incoming Foreign Students (IFS).

Table 6. OS vs IFS


1998 25.1 31.0 59.9

2001 35.5 35.8 58.4

2004 38.5 40.8 45.6

OS

2007 48.6 65.4 35.8

1998 35.6 93.6 No data

2001 38.1 105.9 No data

2004 46.4 125.4 12

IFS

2008 46.0 115.7 13.3

France and Germany appear to be the most extrovert between the three

countries with a relatively good balance of outgoing and incoming students. Once

again Greece nodes towards and introvert tendency since the number of outgoing 744

14

students is significantly higher than the number of incoming students, implying that

the related institutions are not really geared towards international students, for one

reason or another.

In Table 7 we list the data obtained for the indicator Net Migration Rate

(NMR):

Table 7 NMR data


1998 0,8 0,6 5.1

2001 1,4 3,3 3.5

2004 1,7 1 3.7

NMR

2007 1,1 0,5 No data

Between the three countries Greece appears to be more extrovert, since the

migration rate is significantly higher than in France and Germany. However, much of

the difference can be explained due to the Geographic location of Greece, which is

closer to the Balkans, Africa and Middle East, where many of the immigrants

originate from, especially since the events following the fall of the Soviet Union, and

the wars in the Middle East (Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan).

3.2 Quad directional indicator: Expenditure on Research and

Development.

Expenditure on Research and Development (ERD) is a Eurostat indicator

that is measured as “Gross domestic expenditure on R&D [GERD].” However,

Eurostat measures GERD % contribution along three distinct fund sources: Industry,

Government, and Abroad. If we consider GERD (Domestic) = GERD (Industry) +

GERD (Government)3, then the GERD indicator naturally fits the four quadrants for

the two dimensional framework (Eurostat, 2009a).

For this particular indicator there was data for Greece was available only

biannually starting from 1997. Hence the resulting data set used was for the periods

3 We note that the calculation [GERD Domestic] + [GERD Abroad] does not add up to 100%, but the

total it is very close to 100% in all cases, implying that the discrepancies are due to measurement errors

and deviations in the member states, rather than the logic of our calculation. 745

15

1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005. The resulting data for the three countries and the

respective periods is summarised in Table 8.

Table 8 ERD four quadrant data

ERD Country 1999 2001 2003 2005

Germany 32,1 31,4 31,2 28,4

Greece 48,9 46,6 46,4 46,8Government(%) France 36,9 36,9 39 38,6

Germany 65,4 65,7 66,3 67,6

Greece 24,2 33 28,2 31,1Industry(%) France 54,1 54,2 50,8 51,9

Germany 2,1 2,5 2,3 3,7

Greece 24,5 18,4 21,6 19Abroad(%) France 7 7,2 8,4 7,5

Germany 97,5 97,1 97,5 96

Greece 73,1 79,6 74,6 77,9Domestic(%) France 91 91,1 89,8 90,5

As we said the ERD indicator naturally fits the four quadrants of our model. The

resulting graph for the complete dataset is shown in Figure 3.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1001-Government

2-Abroad

3-Industry

4-Domestic

France - 1999France - 2001France - 2003France - 2005Germany - 1999Germany - 2001Germany - 2003Germany - 2005Greece - 1999Greece - 2001Greece - 2003Greece - 2005

Figure 3. The ERD indicator in the four quadrants

746

16

In Figure 3 the structural differences between the three countries are easily

seen through the clustering of the diamond shapes. The smaller diamonds clustered

towards the government and abroad directions are the ‘Greek’ diamonds, while the

‘German’ diamonds are clustered towards domestic and industrial directions. The

‘French’ diamonds are clustered in between the other two. An initial observation is

that Greece relies much more on ERD from abroad and government, whereas France

and Germany rely mostly on Industrial and Government ERD and far less on ERD

from Abroad. Between France and Germany, the latter appears to have far less ERD

from abroad.

In Figure 4 we look only at the Greek ERD shifts for the periods in question.

Throughout the years Government ERD is relatively steady but there are large

variations in ERD from abroad, implying that the conditions for such investment were

also shifting through time.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1001-Government

2-Abroad

3-Industry

4-Domestic

Greece - 1999Greece - 2001Greece - 2003Greece - 2005

Figure 4. Greek ERD shifts

The ERD from abroad is largest in 1999, and lowest in 2001. Similar

magnitude and directional shifts can be observed for the industry ERD, implying that

Greece’s relevant policies are inconsistent in the periods concerned.

In Figure 5 we consider only the German ERD shifts for the periods in

question. 747

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1001-Government

2-Abroad

3-Industry

4-Domestic

Germany - 1999Germany - 2001Germany - 2003Germany - 2005

Figure 5. Germany’s ERD shifts

As is easily seen Germany’s ERD shifts are not significant throughout the

different time periods. The most significant shift can be observed in the allocation

between Government ERD which has been progressively lowered and the Industrial

and foreign ERD which have been progressively increased. Therefore, we find that

Germany is increasing its extrovert characteristics.

In Figure 6 we take a look at France’s ERD shifts.

748

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1001-Government

2-Abroad

3-Industry

4-Domestic

France - 1999France - 2001France - 2003France - 2005

Figure 6. France's ERD shifts

As it is easily seen in Figure 6, France is the more stable between the three

countries, and any shifts are barely noticeable, and overall point to a relatively steady

balance of introvert and extrovert tendencies, at least as far as ERD is concerned in

the four quadrants.

3.3 General remarks on using the framework

Overall, the complete analysis shows us that between France, Germany and Greece,

the introversion and extroversion tendencies remain relatively steady and have small

but important shifts throughout time. Between the three nation-states, Greece appears

to be, on average, the more introvert state, and Germany the more extrovert. While

this could be anticipated if one looks at each nation-state on its own, it also shows

three EU member states, and Euro-zone participants with substantially different

profiles in terms of their relative global positioning. Although this analysis is not

conclusive in any way, it is indicative for us that we are looking in the right direction.

4 Summary and Conclusions

In this paper we are considering and analytic framework for capturing and

analyzing the relative global positioning of nation-states within an IPE context. By

using a carefully selected set of indicators which are influenced directly from state-749

19

level decision making we suggest that the relative global positioning is influenced

through state-level decision-making. The role, then, of the state-level decision makers

is to balance between introversion, or the tendency to promote a state-centered

sustainable development, and extroversion, or the tendency to pursue a collaborative

(with other states) sustainable development. To illustrate our point and the use of the

framework, we have used data for three EU nation-states, France, Germany and

Greece, and have highlighted some of the introversion-extroversion balancing points,

or their relative positioning in a globalised context.

While we are continuing to develop the analytical framework we have been able to

identify a number challenges and difficulties in doing so. Perhaps the greatest

challenge is to identify state-level indicators which can be naturally measured in the

two bidirectional dimensions, so that the relative positioning becomes more intuitive.

Although we have carefully isolated a number of functional pairs that can be used in

either (single) dimension, we are aware that there is still work to be done in terms of

data scaling, unit consistency, and in better matching the qualitative characteristics of

these indicators (e.g. between IIPA and CPI), and ideally to be able to scale them

consistently across both dimensions. We are confident that, eventually, we will be

able to iron out most of these discrepancies and to proceed in identifying cause-and-

effect relationships between indicator value changes and state-level decision making.

Given the relatively small data set and extend of the analysis required for the purposes

of presenting this paper, we believe that we are on the right track, and we will

continue to improve the framework as necessary in order to go to the next level.

5 References

1. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation (CSGR); (2009);

Globalisation Index (OnLine) http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/index/

2. Dreher A., Gaston N, Martens, P.; (2008); Measuring Globalisation: Gauging Its

Consequences, Springer.

3. Eurostat(2009a), Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D by source of funds

19/07/2009,http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugi

n=1&language=en&pcode=tsiir030750

20

4. Eurostat (2009b), Individuals using Internet for interaction with public

authorities,19/07/2009,http://nui.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=i

soc_pibi_igov&lang=en

5. Eurostat (2009c), Mobility of students in Europe - Tertiary Education,

30/07/2009,http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&langu

age=en&pcode=tps00064&plugin=1

6. Goldstein, A.; (1999); Brazilian privatization in international perspective: the

rocky path from state capitalism to regulatory capitalism; Industrial and

Corporate Change, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.673-711.

7. Inoguchi, T. and Bacon, P.; (2006); Japan’s emerging role as ‘global ordinary

power’; International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-21.

8. KOF Swiss Economic Institute; (2009) http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/cite/

9. Lockwood B. and Redoano M.; (2005); The CSGR Globalisation Index: an

Introductory Guide, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation

Working Paper 155/04.

10. Mankiw, N.G.; (1997); Macroeconomics; Worth Publishers, New York.

11. Miller, T and Holmes, K (2009), 2009 Index of Economic Freedom: The Link

Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity, Washington, The Heritage

Foundation.

12. Moreau, F.; (2004); The role of the state in evolutionary economics; Cambridge

Journal of Economics, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 847-974.

13. OECD Factbook (2009a), Law, Order and Defense Expenditure, 20/07/2009,

http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/pdf/factbook2009/302009011e-10-02-03.pdf

14. OECD Factbook (2009b), Trends in Migration, 15/07/2009,

http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/pdf/factbook2009/302009011e-01-03-01.pdf

15. Stiglitz, J.; (2003); Globalization and the economic role of state in the new

millennium; Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 3-26.

16. Sarooshi, D.; (2004); Sovereignty, Economic Autonomy, the United States, and

the International Trading System: Representations of a Relationship; European

Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 651-676. 751

21

17. Transparency International (2009), Corruption Perceptions Index 2008,

20/07/2009,http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/200

8

18. United Nations (2009a), United Nations Peacekeeping, 20/07/2009,

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp

752

Documents

Global Positioning of France, Germany and Greece from 1998