No abstract

Abstract:In paragraph 3 of its Article 3, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) requires the EU to go after the goal of a highly competitive social market economy for the first time. It is noticeable in the aforementioned Treaty clause that although it deals with the EU internal market, its authors burdened it with a mission that is far more sociallyoriented than market-oriented. However, is "a highly competitive social market economy" of today a meaningful goal and does the EU in its present form have the project and powers to achieve such an objective? The paper is a combination of economic and legal -political analysis through which the authors try to answer three main questions: What is the contemporary meaning of the term "social market economy" in the both economic and EU-law academic theory? Can the EU within the powers conferred to it positively fulfill such an objective, or can it just approach it by weakening the still prevailing tendency towards liberalization and deregulation brought about by the construction of the EU internal market and by the promotion of its freedoms?

The purpose of this article is to assess the digital divide that exists between the general public and (active) Internet users in their support for the digitalization of public services (E-Government). In conducting this study, the SKODA AUTO University Research Team gathered data from 1,613 respondents – 611 respondents who are active Internet users (using computer-assisted web interviews) and 1,002 respondents from the general public (using pen-and-paper or computer-assisted personal interviews). Results have indicated that the divide exists, although it does not pose as considerable a challenge to the current E-Governance as is often assumed. Based on the current divide, improved ICT skills and higher Internet usage among citizens could increase overall support for the digitalization of public services by up to 20 percentage points. Data results also identified two societal segments, namely, respondents from 1) the age category 60+ years and 2) ‘Below-average income’ respondents, as particularly vulnerable and marginalized.

No abstract

No abstract