IN A FIERCELY CONTESTED GAME OF FOOTBALL OR RUGBY THE job of the referee is both essential and unenviable. On such occasions, whilst the players will appreciate the importance of the rules of the competition, the incentive to break them can be overwhelming. This is a specific instance of a more general case: the higher the stakes in any competition, the greater the need for a good referee to ensure that the game is played fairly.

Much more significant competition takes place between the industries of the member states of the European Community, and indeed of the rest of the world, for the custom of the Community's markets. It is important to note that the European Community is still far from achieving a truly common market across all the member states, as free from non-tariff barriers as it is already from tariffs. Competition policy in Europe has two referees, national enforcement bodies and the European Commission. This paper is concerned only with the Commission, which has responsibility for matters of competition between the member states.

HARDLY TEN MONTHS AFTER THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC'S ELECtorate had renewed Helmut Schmidt's mandate for another four-year term in office on 5 October 1980, Time offered its readers a scenario that saw Schmidt stepping down as Chancellor by 1 September 1983: an SPD Convention had reneged on his government's commitment to deploy Pershing II and Cruise missiles on West German soil, should the Geneva arms-control talks fail. In a surprise return to the chancellorship, Willy Brandt succeeded in forming a new coalition government with the FDP. When Brandt, however, accepted a Soviet offer to negotiate a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe, Hans Dietrich Genscher's Free Democrats left the cabinet. With its economy deteriorating and the scope of its welfare system another volatile issue, the FRG was pictured as preparing for early, extraordinary elections.

LITTLE NOVELTY IS NOW ATTACHED TO THE PHENOMENON OF Britain's relative industrial decline inasmuch as this had been the subject of interminable debate since well before the First World War. However, compelling reasons can be found now for examining one particular dimension of British performance, namely, industrial innovation. First, it is not too long since the ACARD reports appeared on Britain's capacity to embrace new technology. Secondly, NEDO has only recently published what constitutes the most comprehensive strategy yet devised for the UK electronics industry and, since electronics represents the core technology of the late twentieth century, the British position in this industry needs to be more widely appreciated in any appraisal of industrial innovation. Thirdly, the official level of UK unemployment (3.34 million in September 1982) suggests that without some prospect of reduction, organized labour is unlikely to endorse new technology where this leads to the widespread displacement of employment.

PETER ALEKSEYEVICH KROPOTKIN WAS BORN IN MOSCOW IN 1842, the youngest son of a noble Russian family whose origins could be traced back to the Middle Ages. He died in 1921 in a small village some forty miles to the north of that city, a radical critic of the Bolshevik regime and a symbol for all those who believed that the Bolsheviks had perverted the original aims of the Russian Revolution. In the course of his life he had spent a long period of exile in Western Europe, had been imprisoned both in Russia and in France and had achieved international celebrity in two separate fields. The first was geography, where in particular his research on the structure of the mountain ranges of Northern Asia radically changed the received views of the scientific community. The second was the European anarchist movement, in which Kropotkin played a prominent role both as a revolutionary activist and a theoretician. Indeed these two careers were not as mutually irrelevant as they might at first appear, since the most distinctive feature of Qopotkin's anarchism was the attempt he made to place anarchist ideas on a scientific foundation, borrowing especially from the then-fashionable theory of organic evolution. In the assessment that follows I shall look first at his exposition and defence of anarchist principles, then at his efforts to place those principles in a framework borrowed from the natural sciences and finally offer a critical verdict both on the principles themselves and on the attempt to use evolutionary theory to back them up.