<p>The purpose of this thesis is to study the level of democracy within the European Union (EU). To do so the following issues were examined: How the EU works and the efforts it has made to improve levels of democracy; and the degree to which the EU fulfils the criteria set by Robert Dahl in his theory of polyarchy.</p><p>The study is based on a qualitative text analysis. The focus of the analysis is documents released by the EU that can be connected to democracy, and human and fundamental rights. The theory of polyarchy proposed by Robert Dahl and Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of democracy are the principal theories applied. The thesis also includes theories about democracy within the EU prior to this study.</p><p>The result and conclusion after studying the documents in the light of the theories of Dahl and Schumpeter suggest that the EU could be more democratic than it is at present. The movement towards becoming more democratic is in progress but needs more time. The fundamental criterion, i.e. that citizens should to be able to choose the holders of a particular position, is weak in the EU because there are only general elections to the European Parliament, which is just one of the three main institutions.</p>

Innovation is widely seen as a basis for competition and knowledge plays a key role in underlying its effectiveness in the present economy which is knowledge-based. The innovation process is highly complex and uncertain; it is fraught with ambiguity, risks, errors and failures. How organisations respond to these downsides is not well reflected in the literature. They are often placed in a black box and left empirically unexplored. This researcher attempts to penetrate this box with an exploratory empirical study consisting of two research phases rooted in positivism. In Phase 1, a questionnaire survey is carried out with error management culture, organisational learning and knowledge management as antecedents of innovation effectiveness. The survey data collected are deductively analysed to test these four constructs. In Phase 2, the same data are inductively explored to determine the factors underlying innovation effectiveness. From deduction, knowledge management is found to be the sole antecedent of innovation effectiveness, affirming the importance of knowledge to innovation. From induction, autonomy and trust are found to be key factors underlying innovation effectiveness. Their attributes in this study are collaboration, knowledge sharing and control (for autonomy) and behaviour, relationship and reciprocal faith (for trust). The contributions from this study are – (a) an empirical confirmation on the importance of knowledge to innovation and (b) the derivation of autonomy and trust as key factors underlying its effectiveness. In addition, it contributes to research methodology with an exploratory integration of deduction and induction as complimentary modes of inference to facilitate the understanding of complex subjects like innovation. As a positivist research does not answer the causal how and why of innovation, it is recommended that future research on a similar topic moves to critical realism as a philosophical realm when an ontological dimension can be added to the epistemological exploration posited in positivism as found in this study.

<p>In modern, Swedish political science there are different ways of looking at ‘democracy’. A very common distinction is that between three groups of democratic theories: electoral democracy, participation democracy and deliberative democracy.</p><p>The nowadays frequently used concept of electoral democracy is often used as synonymous with the older concept of repre­­­­sen­tative or indirect democracy – frequently regarded as a contrast to the direct democracy of ancient Athens. However, there are also important differences. As for elections, people have no other significant role than voting for different political parties. It is a common view among defenders of electoral democracy that ‘ordinary people’ ought not to try to influence politicians between the elections.</p><p>There are mainly two different ways of looking at representative democracy; one stresses the future and focuses on mandates; the other focuses on retrospective accountability.</p><p>The modern concept of electoral democracy has many similarities with Joseph Schumpeter’s elite perspective. The main difference is that modern electoral democrats accept the concept of a ‘popular will’ – a concept that Schumpeter regarded as metaphysical.</p><p>The many meanings of the concept of ‘representation’ are analysed with reference to political scientist Hanna Pitkin, who defines its core character as ‘acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them’. Others, like Bernard Manin, regard representative democracy as substantially different from direct democracy. The main difference is the election in contrast to the lot. For Manin, the election is indeed equal and democratic because every person has one and only one vote but at the same time unequal and aristocratic – sometimes even oligarchic – because we usually choose a person who is ‘better’ than the average.</p><p>In the electoral democracy model as well as in Schumpeter’s view, ordinary people need not participate much in the political parties or in the nomination process. The ballot is coming to the voter from the outside – like a stock on the market. For Manin, on the other hand, the nomination process is the central point.</p><p>One conclusion of this analysis is that the so-called electoral model may be regarded as an ideal type, in a Weberian sense. However, there is a risk that the model is interpreted as an ideal in a normative sense, since the concept of electoral democracy not only is narrower and ‘thinner’ than the concept of representative democracy. It is also narrower than the democratic views of Pitkin and Manin. More specifically, using ‘electoral democracy’ synonymously with ‘representative democracy’ may exclude these authors’ understanding of the dynamic mechanisms of the latter’s nomination processes.</p>

In modern, Swedish political science there are different ways of looking at ‘democracy’. A very common distinction is that between three groups of democratic theories: electoral democracy, participation democracy and deliberative democracy. The nowadays frequently used concept of electoral democracy is often used as synonymous with the older concept of repre­­­­sen­tative or indirect democracy – frequently regarded as a contrast to the direct democracy of ancient Athens. However, there are also important differences. As for elections, people have no other significant role than voting for different political parties. It is a common view among defenders of electoral democracy that ‘ordinary people’ ought not to try to influence politicians between the elections. There are mainly two different ways of looking at representative democracy; one stresses the future and focuses on mandates; the other focuses on retrospective accountability. The modern concept of electoral democracy has many similarities with Joseph Schumpeter’s elite perspective. The main difference is that modern electoral democrats accept the concept of a ‘popular will’ – a concept that Schumpeter regarded as metaphysical. The many meanings of the concept of ‘representation’ are analysed with reference to political scientist Hanna Pitkin, who defines its core character as ‘acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them’. Others, like Bernard Manin, regard representative democracy as substantially different from direct democracy. The main difference is the election in contrast to the lot. For Manin, the election is indeed equal and democratic because every person has one and only one vote but at the same time unequal and aristocratic – sometimes even oligarchic – because we usually choose a person who is ‘better’ than the average. In the electoral democracy model as well as in Schumpeter’s view, ordinary people need not participate much in the political parties or in the nomination process. The ballot is coming to the voter from the outside – like a stock on the market. For Manin, on the other hand, the nomination process is the central point. One conclusion of this analysis is that the so-called electoral model may be regarded as an ideal type, in a Weberian sense. However, there is a risk that the model is interpreted as an ideal in a normative sense, since the concept of electoral democracy not only is narrower and ‘thinner’ than the concept of representative democracy. It is also narrower than the democratic views of Pitkin and Manin. More specifically, using ‘electoral democracy’ synonymously with ‘representative democracy’ may exclude these authors’ understanding of the dynamic mechanisms of the latter’s nomination processes.

The purpose of this thesis is to study the level of democracy within the European Union (EU). To do so the following issues were examined: How the EU works and the efforts it has made to improve levels of democracy; and the degree to which the EU fulfils the criteria set by Robert Dahl in his theory of polyarchy. The study is based on a qualitative text analysis. The focus of the analysis is documents released by the EU that can be connected to democracy, and human and fundamental rights. The theory of polyarchy proposed by Robert Dahl and Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of democracy are the principal theories applied. The thesis also includes theories about democracy within the EU prior to this study. The result and conclusion after studying the documents in the light of the theories of Dahl and Schumpeter suggest that the EU could be more democratic than it is at present. The movement towards becoming more democratic is in progress but needs more time. The fundamental criterion, i.e. that citizens should to be able to choose the holders of a particular position, is weak in the EU because there are only general elections to the European Parliament, which is just one of the three main institutions.

Embora os direitos de Propriedade Intelectual (PI) sejam supostamente instituídos de forma a fomentar a inovação e o bem-estar em longo prazo, seu uso pode ensejar comportamentos oportunistas e abusivos como os Artigos 8.2 e 40 do TRIPS expressamente admitem. Sempre que tal tipo de comportamento afetar a concorrência em determinado mercado excluindo concorrentes, impondo barreiras à entrada, prejudicando consumidores por meio de aumento de preços ou redução da oferta o Direito de Concorrência será chamado a intervir. Considerando tais questões, o objetivo desse trabalho é identificar um quadro de trabalho brasileiro para tratar de questões envolvendo questões de Direito de Concorrência relacionadas à Propriedade Intelectual. O autor buscou delinear os conceitos de uso abusivo de direitos de Propriedade Intelectual, Dominação de Mercado por meio de uso da Propriedade Intelectual e de abuso de posição dominante, considerando o novo quadro regulatório introduzido pela Lei 12.259/2001. / While intellectual property (IP) rights are usually claimed to be designed to foster innovation and welfare in the long run, their use may give rise to opportunistic, abusive behavior - as Articles 8.2 and 40 of TRIPS openly admit. Whenever such sort of behavior affects competition in a given market - whether by dislodging competitors, imposing barriers to entry, harming costumers, raising prices or reducing output - competition law is called to intervene. Considering these issues, the purpose of this paper is to identify a Brazilian legal framework for dealing with IP related competition issues. The author sought to draw the legal concepts of abusive of IP rights, market domination and abuse of dominant position considering the new regulatory framework introduced by Law 12.259/2011.

Embora os direitos de Propriedade Intelectual (PI) sejam supostamente instituídos de forma a fomentar a inovação e o bem-estar em longo prazo, seu uso pode ensejar comportamentos oportunistas e abusivos como os Artigos 8.2 e 40 do TRIPS expressamente admitem. Sempre que tal tipo de comportamento afetar a concorrência em determinado mercado excluindo concorrentes, impondo barreiras à entrada, prejudicando consumidores por meio de aumento de preços ou redução da oferta o Direito de Concorrência será chamado a intervir. Considerando tais questões, o objetivo desse trabalho é identificar um quadro de trabalho brasileiro para tratar de questões envolvendo questões de Direito de Concorrência relacionadas à Propriedade Intelectual. O autor buscou delinear os conceitos de uso abusivo de direitos de Propriedade Intelectual, Dominação de Mercado por meio de uso da Propriedade Intelectual e de abuso de posição dominante, considerando o novo quadro regulatório introduzido pela Lei 12.259/2001. / While intellectual property (IP) rights are usually claimed to be designed to foster innovation and welfare in the long run, their use may give rise to opportunistic, abusive behavior - as Articles 8.2 and 40 of TRIPS openly admit. Whenever such sort of behavior affects competition in a given market - whether by dislodging competitors, imposing barriers to entry, harming costumers, raising prices or reducing output - competition law is called to intervene. Considering these issues, the purpose of this paper is to identify a Brazilian legal framework for dealing with IP related competition issues. The author sought to draw the legal concepts of abusive of IP rights, market domination and abuse of dominant position considering the new regulatory framework introduced by Law 12.259/2011.