Abstract
While short-term capital flows and foreign direct investment have never moved across borders so freely, neither has the international movement of people been so ‘managed’. This is one of the apparent paradoxes at the heart of today’s pattern of globalization. In an era of much-proclaimed liberalism, rules at the national level governing conditions for the granting of visas, work or residence permits, and ultimately permanent residence and naturalization, constitute perhaps the strongest remaining expression of state power. These rules are hardly subject to any international oversight, or even coordination, save in the restricted realm of asylum, where the national norms relating to the movement of people become subject to international human-rights norms. The paradox, of course, is only apparent. The weight of forces driving the liberalization of capital movement dwarfs those driving the free movement of people. More fundamentally, policies addressing migration, bound up as they are with the ‘who is “us”’, the definition of political as well as economic boundaries, and, ultimately, the flexibility or lack thereof of group identities, escape the sole constraint of economic rationality.
A substantial part of the research for this paper was conducted for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and is contained in the Report: Nicolaïdis K., ‘Promising Approaches and Principal Obstacles to Mutual Recognition’, in International Trade in Professional Services: Advancing Liberalization through Regulatory Reform, OECD Publications, 1997. See also ‘Managed Mutual Recognition: The New Approach to the Liberalization of Professional Services’, Working Paper no. 97-14, Politics Research Group, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Spring 1997.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See Nicolaïdis, K., ‘Mutual Recognition of Regulatory Regimes: Some Lessons and Prospects’, in Regulatory Reform and International Market Openness, OECD Publications, November 1996.
See Ascher, B., ‘Trade Agreements and the Professions’, Paper presented at Euroservices: Transatlantic Trade in the 21st Century, US Department of Commerce, 18 June 1996, p. 4.
See Nicolaïdis, K., International Trade in Information-Based Services: Beyond the Uruguay Round’, in Drake, W. (ed.), The New Information Economy, New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1995; OECD Secretariat, Liberalization of Trade in Professional Services, Paris, OECD publications, 1995; and OECD Secretariat, International Trade in Professional Services: Assessing Barriers and Encouraging Reform, Paris, OECD publications, 1996 (referred to hereafter as OECD Documents, 1995 and 1996). Measures are recorded in the OECD Inventory of Measures Affecting Trade in Professional Services and the survey on Regulation on Access to the Professions and their Activities.
See Orzack, L., ‘The General Systems Directive: Education and the Liberal Professions’, in Hurwitz and Lequesnes (eds), The State of the European Community, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 1991.
For an extensive analysis, see Coyne, S., International Trade in Legal Services, Little, Brown & Co., 1996.
Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive to Facilitate Practice of the Profession of Lawyer on a Permanent Basis in a Member State Other Than That in Which the Qualification Was Obtained, COM (94) 572 final, Brussels, 21.12.1994, 94/0299 (COD); Amended Proposal, Com (96) 446 fin. For a description of the negotiations, see Coyne, S., International Trade in Legal Services, Little, Brown & Co., 1996.
See Leebron, D. in OECD Proceedings, Regulatory Reform and International Market Openness, 1996.
The Convention was signed between UNESCO (CEPES), the Council of Europe, and the European Union, through their respective national information networks on academic recognition, such as the European National Information Centres on Academic Recognition and Mobility (ENIC). See Uvalic-Trumbic, S., ‘Guidelines and Recommendations from the Working Group on Europe—U.S.A.: Mutual Recognition of Qualifications’, CEPES-UNESCO, 1996.
See, notably, the contributions by Knapp, U. and J. Murray, ‘Liberalization and the Consumer’, in OECD Documents, 1996.
For a discussion of the importance of this idea in the context of the Uruguay Round, see Drake, W. and Nicolaïdis, K. ‘Ideas, Interests and Institutionalization: “Trade in Services” and the Uruguay Round’, in International Organization, vol. 46, no.1, Winter 1992, pp. 37–100.
This line of thinking can be presented under the general category of ‘securing insecure contracts’. For a discussion, see Nicolaïdis, K., ‘Mutual Recognition of Regulatory Regimes: Some Lessons and Prospects’, in Regulatory Reform and International Market Openness, OECD Publications, November 1996, pp. 18–20. This section draws heavily on this chapter.
See Ascher, B., ‘Trade Agreements and the Professions’, Paper presented at Euroservices: Transatlantic Trade in the 21st Century, US Department of Commerce, 18 June 1996, p. 7.
See Ascher, B., ‘Trade Agreements and the Professions’, Paper presented at Euroservices: Transatlantic Trade in the 21st Century, US Department of Commerce, 18 June 1996, p. 8 and our earlier discussion, in p. 146.
Ascher, B., ‘Trade Agreements and the Professions’, Paper presented at Euroservices: Transatlantic Trade in the 21st Century, US Department of Commerce, 18 June 1996, p. 7.
Nicolaïdis, K., ‘Mutual Recognition of Regulatory Regimes: Some Lessons and Prospects’, in Regulatory Reform and International Market Openness, OECD Publications, November 1996.
This section draws extensively from Nicolaïdis, K., ‘Mutual Recognition of Regulatory Regimes: Some Lessons and Prospects’, in Regulatory Reform and International Market Openness, OECD Publications, November 1996.
In the field of law, for instance, the USA requested that the EU grant US lawyers the same treatment accorded to English solicitors (e.g. right to advise) on behalf of all non-EU lawyers. US negotiators may have been illadvised to make such a universal demand, for this was seized upon by the EU to refuse to consider the request. Under the draft establishment Directive for lawyers, non-EU lawyers who qualify as English solicitors by passing the English Qualified Lawyers Test (e.g. from Canada, the USA or Australia) or as Avocat by passing the French Special Exam would not be entitled to the benefits of the Directive unless they were EU nationals. See Coyne, S., International Trade in Legal Services, Little, Brown & Co., 1996.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2005 Kalypso Nicolaïdis
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nicolaïdis, K. (2005). Globalization with Human Faces: Managed Mutual Recognition and the Free Movement of Professionals. In: Padoa Schioppa, F.K. (eds) The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the European Integration Process. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524354_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524354_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-51748-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-52435-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)