KiteBlue

Mumbai's 8/11 presents challenges of co-ordinated security

Mumbai's 8/11 is emblematic of a lack of security co-ordination across city, national and private sector organisations. Jyoti Banerjee examines the lessons that the West can learn from Mumbai's 8/11.

Mumbai’s terror attacks at the end of November have created a deep sense of sadness and loss among Indians everywhere. The pictures on TV screens showing casually-dressed young men casually spreading violence and death have been more upsetting than the anonymous bomb blasts that have characterised terrorist attacks in India till now. More than ever, it is possible to reflect on the continuing truth in Barack Obama’s words, spoken about the New York terrorists in 2001: "My powers of empathy, my ability to reach into another's heart, cannot penetrate the blank stares of those who would murder innocents with such abstract, serene satisfaction."

But there is also a growing resolve across the country that India should not be such a soft target for terrorist action. It certainly seems to lack any sort of co-ordinated structure or system that can deal with credible threats and prosecute them with any urgency. Security agencies around the world are already competing for bragging rights regarding who was first to inform the Indians that a sea-borne attack on Mumbai was imminent.

An uncommon CAP: why Europe needs to rethink its budgetary priorities

The constitutional crisis in the EU has been rapidly over-run by the budgetary crisis that now absorbs the attention of Europe’s beleaguered leadership. In this brief note, Jyoti Banerjee asks whether the Common Agricultural Policy, a major budgetary battleground, can be defended in an era of intense competition among the rich and hunger among the poor.

On a number of occasions, this blog has pointed to Europe’s poor showing against the US when it comes to the measures relating to R&D performance, productivity, technology and competitiveness. A 2004 study by the European Commission pointed to Europe lagging America on 11 out of 12 such measures.

This is particularly apposite discussion material when battle is being waged for the heart of Europe: will Europe be a competitive economic force competing with the Americans and the Asians, or will it be a social welfare state that helps out those of its citizens that struggle to keep afloat in a world that is changing around them?

What is interesting to me is that the protagonists on both sides of the European argument seem to believe that their kind of Europe precludes the other kind. My own view is that a competitive productive Europe is more likely to be able to afford to be a socially hospitable place for its citizens; though, inequalities in the distribution of income at the margin can prevent any of its gains ever reaching the people who need that assistance. However, a Europe constructed purely on social principles without paying attention to competitiveness and productivity will eventually fall behind the other economic blocs to such an extent that there will be no money to float the boats that have run aground. Using the terminology of the mathematical theorists, neither approach provides sufficient conditions for success but putting competitiveness top of the agenda seems a necessary condition.

Linking research to economic growth

Tying Europe’s investments into research and innovation to its economic progress is one of the biggest challenges facing the EU. This article draws on documents previously published by Jyoti Banerjee in order to lay out the linkages that allow investment in research to foster economic growth.

The relationship between research, innovation and economic impact is summarised, followed by a brief discussion on benchmarking methodological issues. The structure of this section is as follows:
* European response to the Lisbon growth agenda
* The link between research and growth
* Cross-linking innovation to research and growth
* Exploring FP research impacts on innovation
* Benchmarking issues in innovation

Impact assessments on a crest of a wave

Following the lead of the Regulatory Impact Unit (RIU) in Britain's Cabinet Office, impact assessments are in fashion in governments across Europe at the moment, with the European Commission replacing its earlier interest in ex ante evaluation with impact assessment. But does impact assessment actually deliver the goods or is it a paper-pushing game that bureaucrats play in order to get their regulations through the hoops of Parliament? This note argues that impact assessment is not as easy as it looks, if the early history in the Commission is observed.

The 2002 Communication of the European Commission on Impact Assessment committed the Commission to undertake impact assessment of all major policy proposals in order to “improve the quality and coherence of the policy development process.” It was also seen as contributing to regulatory reform.

By 2003, a unified system of integrated impact assessment had been introduced which replaced several separate, more specialised forms of assessment that were in use in different parts of the Commission. The new system consisted of ‘preliminary’ assessment of all proposals in the Commission’s work programme and ‘extended’ assessments of major proposals. In the first year of use, a total of 20 Extended Impact Assessments (Ex IA) were completed with a further 46 intended for 2004. However, during the course of 2004, the Commission decided to drop the ‘Extended’ label on the grounds that all policy proposals were deserving of integrated impact assessment.

Holding up the spread of the Information Society in Europe

Funding ICT research has positive long-term implications for the future and competitiveness of the European economy but there are current roadblocks that impact the spread of the information economy that the Lisbon agenda is predicated on. Two of the most significant hurdles are the regulatory framework for e-business in the member states and the need for overhauling the public sector which remains in urgent need of modernisation.

According to Fabio Colasanti, director general, DG Information Society, European Commission, “a new regulatory framework based on convergence and technological neutrality has been in force in the member states since July 2004, which should provide certainty to investors, increase competition and consumer choice.” However, substantial evidence exists from within the European Commission indicating that European enterprises face problems in engaging with e-business opportunities. A number of problems relate to how national administrations and judicial systems in the member states have chosen to implement in their own environments the e-directives that have emerged from the legal framework of the European Community. John Watson, an associate of mine and managing director of The Evaluation Partnership, a consultancy specialising in EU affairs, says, "Our studies in the European Commission have indicated that despite harmonisation on e-directives there are still serious challenges in e-business activity across Europe in four main regulatory areas: e-signatures, e-invoicing, contract conclusion and contract implementation."