The past decade brought to the public’s attention record-breaking bankruptcy filings in the U.S. While many of these failures occurred in association with the downturn in the market, many did not. Some, for example, were the result of significant fraud.
Regardless of the causes of these substantial bankruptcies, and particularly in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom collapses in the early 2000s, a strong consensus emerged among policymakers and industry observers that existing management practices and government oversight were insufficient to promote a well-functioning and sound security market.
In this paper we try to shed some light on the effect of the European integration on price, wage, and unemployment dynamics in Spain. Spain is the largest of the four “peripheral” countries that joined the European Union and her experience has been successful in curbing inflation and promoting economic growth and employment.
The question is whether there are useful lessons to be learnt from the Spanish experience in connection with the next round of enlargement of the EMU with the new member states from Central and Eastern Europe. By understanding the historical changes in the macroeconomic mechanisms in Spain during the convergence period, we might be able to better foresee (and hopefully avoid) future problems for the new member states. For this purpose, we will address a large number of empirical questions based on a dynamic interdependent system consisting of consumer and producer prices, wages, productivity, interest rates and exchange rates.
Biotechnology and life science-based industries more generally, are now viewed as quintessential elements of the contemporary knowledge economy, and as important drivers of economic growth and dynamism in developed and developing countries alike (Feldman, 2000b; Rosiello, 2008; Thorsteinsdo´ ttir et al., 2004). In recent times, these industries have become the focus of economic development strategies in many national and subnational jurisdictions, with the emphasis on biotechnology in particular (see Christensen, 2003; Feldman, 2003; Feldman & Frances, 2003).
However, this somewhat narrow focus tends to overlook a number of related activities within the broader sphere of life sciences that are themselves very significant sources of innovation and employment (Cooke, 2007, 2008). This approach suggests that it is more useful to consider the life sciences more broadly, to include a wider range of activities related to but not limited to—biotechnology and that draw upon a variety of different technologies and knowledge bases.
