Search results
3 The politics of international co-operation: neutrality and crisis Delivering his presidential address to the 1934 international co-operative congress in London, Väinö Tanner reflected on the profound economic and political changes which had buffeted the co-operative movement since the previous congress.1 The early 1930s were difficult years for the ICA. In 1933 it had to take the unusual step of postponing its congress, and in the same year it lost one of its largest and most important members when the German co-operative movement was taken over by the Nazis
1 Co-operation in the Nordic countries before 1914: international networks and the transmission of ideas Nordic co-operative societies emerged during the nineteenth century as part of the wave of popular associations that included the free churches, the folk high schools, the temperance movement, voluntary fire brigades and civil defence corps, and the labour movement.1 There is a broad historical consensus that, aided by a relatively benign and tolerant state, the nineteenth century popular movements were a means to channel popular dissent and avoid violent
After decades of flying beneath the radar, co-operation as a principle of business and socio-economic organisation is moving from the margins of economic, social and political thought into the mainstream. In both the developed and developing worlds, co-operative models are increasingly viewed as central to tackling a diverse array of issues, including global food security, climate change, sustainable economic development, public service provision, and gender inequality. This collection, drawing together research from an interdisciplinary group of scholars and co-operative practitioners, considers the different spheres in which co-operatives are becoming more prominent. Drawing examples from different national and international contexts, the book offers major insights into how co-operation will come to occupy a more central role in social and economic life in the twenty-first century.
agreements concluded with third countries, which it described as ‘a basis for political dialogue and a tool for EU external action’ (Council, 2004, p. 7). The external dimension of the EU counter-terrorism policy represents an important element in the possible construction of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, as making the EU secure depends at least to some extent on successful co-operation with
5 Co-operation and the emergence of the Nordic ‘middle way’ In 1931 the Norwegian journal Kooperatøren published an article by NAF director Frederik Nielsen, assessing the development of his organisation. Nielsen concluded that economic collaboration through NAF had now become taken for granted (en selvfølge) by the Nordic consumer co-operative unions, and, moreover, that NAF had contributed to raising awareness of Nordic ‘brotherhood’ (broderskapet) in co-operative circles worldwide.1 The efforts of the Nordic co-operative unions to adopt a common position on
This book examines the underlying foundations on which the European Union's counter-terrorism and police co-operation policies have been built since the inception of the Treaty on European Union, questioning both the effectiveness and legitimacy of the EU's efforts in these two security areas. Given the importance of such developments to the wider credibility of the EU as a security actor, it adopts a more structured analysis of key stages of the implementation process. These include the establishment of objectives, both at the wider level of internal security co-operation and in terms of both counter-terrorism and policing, particularly in relation to the European Police Office, the nature of information exchange and the ‘value added’ by legislative and operational developments at the European level. The book also offers a more accurate appraisal of the official characterisation of the terrorist threat within the EU as a ‘matter of common concern’. In doing so, not only does it raise important questions about the utility of the European level for organising internal security co-operation, but it also provides a more comprehensive assessment of the EU's activities throughout the lifetime of the Third Pillar, placing in a wide and realistic context the EU's reaction to the events of 11 September 2001 and the greater prominence of Islamist terrorism.
4 Nordisk Andelsforbund (NAF), co-operative trade and Nordic co-operation during the interwar period For the vast majority of men and women who joined co-operative societies and used their services, co-operation was essentially about goods. Whether it was the farmer delivering his milk to the co-operative dairy, or the ‘woman with the basket’ shopping at the stores, no amount of peace resolutions could conceal the fact that co-operation was above all concerned with the material world: the practical organisation of the production and distribution of food and
vision for the IAOS that saw people of all political and religious stripes united behind a project to promote ‘the welfare of the agricultural classes’. Plunkett's appeal for cross-societal support to spread the principle of co-operation stood out in a context of fractious debates about what direction Ireland's political future should take. As someone who studied the condition of Irish agriculture, Plunkett concluded that farmers worked within an exploitative system. Farmers bought too dear and sold too cheap; transport costs remained too high; inadequate credit
. The outbreak of the war led to a rapid increase in the output of agricultural produce in the British economy. 16 Food supply formed a major concern of British governance in wartime and Irish agriculture remained a central plank to Britain's economic performance. The IAOS pleaded with the DATI to co-ordinate their work for the sake of the war effort and to put ‘an end to all friction between the official and voluntary agencies working for agricultural development in Ireland and insuring their harmonious co-operation’. 17 The DATI and IAOS initially presented a
encouraging co-operation between member states since 9/11 (Zimmermann, 2006; Kaunert, 2007). Zimmermann (2006, p. 123) asserted that ‘on 21 September 2001, the Union prioritised the fight against terrorism, and accelerated the development and implementation of measures deliberated on prior to the events of 9/11’. Yet, Zimmermann (2006, p. 126) makes an important caveat to all EU action in the field of counter