Show description

However across both of these sectors, the integrative approach to the introduction of market forces was resisted by incumbents through both market and non-market strategies. Thus, despite states moving away from control and ownership towards a market-based paradigm, the actions of incumbents suggest that they did not share the same zeal to relinquish their dominant position. Thus despite a commitment to the move towards a liberal regime, the shift away from control pushed the development in infrastructure in a number of different directions.

Simultaneously, groups of personal representatives of heads of state, in the form of the Bangemann Group (telecommunications) and the Christophersen Group (transport and energy), were investigating ways to promote these networks. The shifting paradigm of network development Whilst it can be argued that TENs are essentially a technocratic issue, they also represent an important impetus to the process of integration. Developing infrastructure that meets purely national needs is not only anachronistic but increasingly self-defeating.

This shift in policy underlines that, ultimately, structural change is up to economic operators and no one else. The new themes in industrial policy are designed to be compatible with the lurch towards subsidiarity, stressing that competitiveness is ultimately up to member states. The EU merely has a co-ordinating role through taking horizontal measures via a series of common policies. In part, this is a realisation that the degree of change needed and the expense involved is beyond the capabilities of A Development Paradigm for Trans-European Networks 39 the public sector.