{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018798378179137487, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002948765204570586, 'mean_word_length': 5.446555819477434, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Regulation and Competitiveness: A Mysterious and Difficult Relationship in the European Union

"However, the difference in legal infrastructure does not result from the California legislature's efforts to provide the proper conditions for the development of high technology industrial districts. Rather a serendipitous result of the historical coincidence between the codification movement in the United States and the new state's efforts at developing a coherent legal system out of its conflicting inheritance of Spanish, Mexican, and English law." The Lisbon Agenda, which has attempted to combine the attainment of ambitious competitiveness goals with social progression and inclusiveness, places Europe in a uniquely difficult position globally, most particularly as an example of an experiment which many consider to be doomed to failure. As Europeans continue to examine ways in which Europe can become more economically competitive compared, in particular, with the United States, the focus has increasingly been on regulation and its effect on entrepreneurship, productivity, business growth, and capital liquidity. Assessing this effect or relationship is complex for a number of reasons which will be considered here. Firstly, not all regulatory effects can be predicted. Path-dependency scholars have also demonstrated that the operation of regulation within a particular context will have varying effects. Secondly, theoretically it is clear that many non-regulatory factors may contribute to economic and competitive success. Thirdly, there is evidence of internal conflict within the Commission as to the relative importance of the Lisbon goals, this in turn has led to a failure to engage in a profound way with assumptions around what can be loosely described as cost-benefit analyses. Finally, the experience of distinct member states within the European Union presents challenges both for assessment and prescriptive remedies. Nevertheless, undaunted by the complexity of these issues the European Union has resolved to provide definitive answers to an hypothesised problem of over-regulation of business. The Commission has estimated that the cost of regulatory compliance obligations on businesses in the European Union is between 4% and 6% of GDP and that 15% of this figure is avoidable 'red tape' (the term used to specifically signify unnecessary compliance burdens). Against the background of an unresolved political debate at the macro level, this paper proposes to examine the Dutch and UK approaches to the reduction of the regulatory burden, as examples of leaders in the field, and assess the likely outcomes as we rapidly approach 2010, the year for attainment of the Lisbon goals.