No abstract

The important role that creativities play in children's cultural, social and emotional development has been well recognised. Nevertheless, studies have also revealed that creativity is often a neglected aspect in music education. Based on data collected through interviews with 10 music teachers, this chapter addresses the insufficient creativity in music education practice in Greek-Cypriot Primary education. The aim of this chapter is to offer an overview of the symbiotic weaknesses of the approach to creativities through music in Primary education in the Greek-Cypriot educational system, examining how music teaching has been deployed as a tool for strategic interests. In addition, it highlights the need for a change in mentality on the part of the agents that constitute the leaders and managers of the educational system in Greek-Cypriot Primary schools, shedding light on broader pedagogical aspects of the music lesson as vital for the development of creativities in music and through music.

No abstract

Reasonable disagreements are pervasive in antitrust, yet the leading antitrust systems function in a broadly effective and consistent manner. How can we explain this paradox? The tentative reply to this question is that the two main antitrust jurisdictions have managed to do so by adopting the features of ‘responsive law’ (RL). Therefore, antitrust institutions could further benefit if they adopt the RL framework to understand and deal with reasonable disagreements. To support this argument, I contend that reasonable disagreements are endogenous in antitrust systems, as they derive from antitrust’s fuzzy mandate, conceptually elastic vocabulary, and rules and standards mode of analysis. In a nutshell, reasonable disagreements are the by-product of two complementary yet antithetical forces of antitrust: openness and integrity. Nonetheless, conventional wisdom has it that such disagreements are temporary indeterminacies that will eventually be eradicated. This view stems from a conceptualization of antitrust as a form of ‘autonomous law’. However, this model of law does not take reasonable disagreements seriously and as a result offers an inadequate modus operandi for dealing with them. The ‘RL’ model, on the contrary, recognizes the endogeneity of reasonable disagreements and the underlying forces that generate them. Instead of attempting to eliminate them, therefore, the RL model suggests that antitrust institutions should seek to tame and exploit them. For this purpose, this model proposes a legal-institutional modus operandi for calibrating the eliciting forces of reasonable disagreements, that is, openness and integrity. The hallmarks of this approach are constructive teleological interpretation, experimentalist network-based enforcement by postbureaucratic enforcers, and courts operating as catalysts.

This article examines whether sustainability concerns play and should play any role in EU merger control. While competition authorities have commenced exploring pathways to excuse prima facie anticompetitive mergers on sustainability grounds, little progress has been made in setting out whether and under which conditions mergers that adversely affect sustainability parameters can be found anticompetitive. Under the EU merger control regime, the adverse effects of mergers on sustainability are only cognizable as innovation-related issues, as recently evidenced in Dow/Dupont and Bayer/Monsanto. In these cases, the Commission pioneered a novel approach aimed at predicting the impact of a merger not only on prices but also on innovation competition. This theory of harm, although a welcome improvement to the current framework of merger analysis, fails to accommodate all competition-relevant sustainability concerns because of its exclusive focus on innovation capabilities, efforts, and output. On this basis, we argue that innovation competition should not be understood only as an output-maximizing device but also as a polycentric process under which independent decision-makers pursue various innovation paths. Such an approach gives prominence to the diversity, quality, and direction of innovation and constitutes an alternative to the predominant output-centred understanding of innovation. To operationalize this notion of innovation competition as a polycentric process we explore four pathways: adopting quality-related and sustainability-sensitive innovation metrics; using indicators of industry-wide structural effects; endorsing a structural filter; and protecting nascent competitors. Adding such an approach to the existing analytical framework would, arguably, enable the Commission to deal with all sustainability concerns related to the notion of innovation competition.