The EU Model of Integration - Relevance Elsewhere? Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 5 No. 37, December 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Introduction]. By any standard the European Union (EU) is a successful model of integration. But can it be replicated, even partially, elsewhere? The EU model is highly regarded elsewhere in the world and the attempts to imitate parts of the EU system are perhaps the sincerest form of flattery. In Africa there is the increasingly important Africa Union, as well as a number of regional (e.g. ECOWAS) and sub-regional organizations. In Latin America there is the Andean Pact and Mercosur as well as the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). The North American Free Trade Agreement covers the US, Canada and Mexico. In the Middle East there is the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). In Asia there is the association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Asian regional forum (ARF). There is now much speculation about an East Asian Community and a summit is planned for Malaysia in December to discuss such a development. But no regional organisation has come close to matching the achievements of the EU. What are the key elements that made the EU such a success? This paper reviews some of the factors that are essential for regional integration and examines global trends including the relations between the EU and regional organisations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".