In despite of extensive research of franchising in the scientific community, there are a lot of unresolved issues relating to franchising, in particular its regulation at the national level and at the level of the European Union that is why the purpose of the paper is to summarise and present the difference between state regulation of franchising in the EU member states and to research the basic principles of state regulation of franchising in the EU also to analyze legislation of the franchise relationship. Methodology. The survey is based on a comparison of data from all EU member countries and analisis of the legal framework of each country in particular and in general EU legislation. The article is devoted to a detailed analysis of main features of the franchise business in Europe. The mechanism of implementation of franchise relations between EU member states are studied. Government regulation of franchising in the EU member states are investigated. The rate of growth of franchising in Europe are analized. Results. By comparing different state laws and regulations of franchising we have identified the most effective and productive. We divided counties into two groups due to their regulation of franchising: countries which do not have a special government regulation of franchising; the countries which have state regulation of franchising; countries which have government regulation of franchising and it is governed by EU law, countries in which regulation is carried out in accordance with EU law. Thus, results of the survey showed that government regulation of franchising, as well as its regulation at the level of EU institutions have a positive impact on the development of franchising relationships. Practical implications of the results of the paper will help to develop well known network of franchise bussiness without legislative interference. Value/originality. It is first time we have grouped countries due to the main aspects of state regulation of franchising.

Under the pressure of health care reform in the 1990s, interactions among the state, sickness funds, and providers in Germany are said to have entered a new era. We examine this new era by assessing both long-term developments connected to German statutory health insurance (SHI) and related short-term developments of the 1990s. Highly institutionalized rules and practices provide little opportunity for abandoning the historical path of two primary factors: the self-governance of SHI and a strong tradition of a semisovereign state. Some opportunities exist for introducing new ideas, rearranging priorities, softening rules, and adding new complex rules and procedures in a fairly fragmented policy-making system, perhaps even because of fragmentation. Yet reforms that depart from the status quo are severely limited by strong legal and administrative traditions and established rules of the game. These restrictions tend to reinforce state intervention, prevent the emergence of consistent and coherent visions of future health policy, and stifle policy innovation and implementation. In sum, reform measures tend to remain well within the priorities established within state and corporatist governance structures.

This paper provides a comparison of European Union regulatory policy for pharmaceuticals and medical devices. The discussion highlights key similarities and differences in regulatory approach for the two sectors. More importantly, it explores the balance that has been struck between public health, health care, and industrial policy as "competing" objectives within the respective regulatory regimes. It is argued that, despite both sectors being affected by the same institutional rules and constraints at the EU level, and both being central to the delivery of high-quality health care in Europe, there are a surprising number of differences between the regulatory frameworks. That this stems in part from their different "launch" times, hence different institutional conditions of regulation, and commensurate political climates, as well as reflecting different aims and goals among member-state and EU-level policy makers, are among the paper's main conclusions. Copyright 2007 by The Policy Studies Organization.

German Statutory Health Insurance (national health insurance) has remained relatively intact over the past century, even in the face of governmental change and recent reforms. The overall story of German national health insurance is one of political compromise and successful implementation of communitarian values. Several key lessons from the German experience can be applied to the American health care system.