@article{Dawson, author = {Dawson, Mark}, title = {New governance and the displacement of Social Europe: the case of the European Semester}, series = {European Constitutional Law Review}, volume = {14}, journal = {European Constitutional Law Review}, number = {1}, issn = {1574-0196}, doi = {10.1017/S1574019618000081}, pages = {191 -- 209}, abstract = {Has the European Semester led to a displacement of Social Europe, or to the development of social policy through fiscal processes and actors? - Potential for Semester to increase soft law's binding effects or 'socialise' EU policy-making - Positive effects severely limited by the Semester's overall goals: fiscal stabilisation and the creation of increasingly uniform economic policies - Dilemma for Social Europe: how can an autonomous EU social policy be (re) established without risking marginalisation?}, language = {en} } @article{KoopRehBressanelli, author = {Koop, Christel and Reh, Christine and Bressanelli, Edoardo}, title = {When politics prevails: Parties, elections and loyalty in the European Parliament}, series = {European Journal of Political Research}, volume = {57}, journal = {European Journal of Political Research}, number = {3}, issn = {1475-6765.12252}, doi = {10.1111/1475-6765.12252}, pages = {563 -- 586}, abstract = {In many political systems, legislators serve multiple principals who compete for their loyalty in legislative votes. This article explores the political conditions under which legislators choose between their competing principals in multilevel systems, with a focus on how election proximity shapes legislative behaviour across democratic arenas. Empirically, the effect of electoral cycles on national party delegations' 'collective disloyalty' with their political groups in the European Parliament (EP) is analysed. It is argued that election proximity changes the time horizons, political incentives and risk perceptions of both delegations and their principals, 'punctuating' cost-benefit calculations around defection as well as around controlling, sanctioning and accommodating. Under the shadow of elections, national delegations' collective disloyalty with their transnational groups should, therefore, increase. Using a new dataset with roll-call votes cast under legislative codecision by delegations between July 1999 and July 2014, the article shows that the proximity of planned national and European elections drives up disloyalty in the EP, particularly by delegations from member states with party-centred electoral rules. The results also support a 'politicisation' effect: overall, delegations become more loyal over time, but the impact of election proximity as a driver of disloyalty is strongest in the latest parliament analysed (i.e., 2009-2014). Furthermore, disloyalty is more likely in votes on contested and salient legislation, and under conditions of Euroscepticism; by contrast, disloyalty is less likely in votes on codification files, when a delegation holds the rapporteurship and when the national party participates in government. The analysis sheds new light on electoral politics as a determinant of legislative choice under competing principals, and on the conditions under which politics 'travels' across democratic arenas in the European Union's multilevel polity.}, language = {en} } @article{DawsonBobićMaricutAkbik, author = {Dawson, Mark and Bobić, Ana and Maricut-Akbik, Adina}, title = {Reconciling Independence and accountability at the European Central Bank: The false promise of Proceduralism}, series = {European Law Journal}, volume = {25}, journal = {European Law Journal}, number = {1}, issn = {1468-0386}, doi = {10.1111/eulj.12305}, pages = {75 -- 93}, abstract = {This article revisits the balancing act between independence and accountability at the European Central Bank (ECB). It contrasts procedural and substantive concepts of accountability, and challenges the mainstream idea that independence and accountability can be reconciled through narrow mandates, the indiscriminate increase of transparency, the creation of multiple channels of accountability, and the active use of judicial review. These assumptions form the pillars of a procedural type of accountability that promises to resolve the independence/accountability dilemma but fails to do so in practice. The article brings evidence to show how ECB accountability has become a complex administrative exercise that focuses on the procedural steps leading up to monetary and supervisory decisions while simultaneously limiting substantive accountability. The failure to acknowledge the trade-off between independence and accountability (said to be 'two sides of the same coin') has resulted in a tendency to privilege the former over the latter.}, language = {en} } @article{DawsonAugensteinThielboerger, author = {Dawson, Mark and Augenstein, Daniel and Thielb{\"o}rger, Pierre}, title = {The UNGPs in the European Union: The Open Coordination of Business and Human Rights?}, series = {Business and Human Rights Journal}, volume = {3}, journal = {Business and Human Rights Journal}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1017/bhj.2017.30}, pages = {1 -- 22}, abstract = {The article examines the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in the European Union via National Action Plans (NAPs). We argue that some of the shortcomings currently observed in the implementation process could effectively be addressed through the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) - a governance instrument already used by the European Union (EU) in other policy domains. The article sketches out the polycentric global governance approach envisaged by the UNGPs and discusses the institutional and policy background of their implementation in the EU. It provides an assessment of EU member states' NAPs on business and human rights, as benchmarked against international NAP guidance, before relating experiences with the existing NAP process to the policy background and rationale of the OMC and considering the conditions for employing the OMC in the business and human rights domain. Building on a recent opinion of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, the article concludes with a concrete proposal for developing an OMC on business and human rights in the EU.}, language = {en} } @article{BenassyQuereBrunnermeierEnderleinetal., author = {B{\´e}nassy-Qu{\´e}r{\´e}, Agn{\`e}s and Brunnermeier, Markus and Enderlein, Henrik and Pisani-Ferry, Jean and Farhi, Emmanuel and Fratzscher, Marcel and Fuest, Clemens and Gourinchas, Pierre-Olivier and Martin, Philippe and Rey, H{\´e}l{\`e}ne and Schnabel, Isabel and V{\´e}ron, Nicolas and Weder di Mauro, B{\´e}atrice and Zettelmeyer, J{\´e}romin}, title = {Reconciling risk sharing with market discipline: A constructive approach to Eurozone reform}, series = {CEPR Policy Insight No. 91}, journal = {CEPR Policy Insight No. 91}, language = {en} } @article{GenschelJachtenfuchs, author = {Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {From Market Integration to Core State Powers. The Eurozone Crisis, the Refugee Crisis and Integration Theory}, series = {Journal of Common Market Studies}, volume = {56}, journal = {Journal of Common Market Studies}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1111/jcms.12654}, pages = {178 -- 196}, abstract = {The Eurozone crisis and the refugee crisis are showcases of the problems associated with the EU's shift from market integration to the integration of core state powers. The integration of core state powers responds to similar demand factors as market integration (interdependence, externalities and spillover) but its supply is more tightly constrained by a high propensity for zero-sum conflict, a functional requirement for centralized fiscal, coercive and administrative capacities, and high political salience. We show how these constraints structured the initial design of Economic and Monetary Union and of Schengen, made them vulnerable to crisis, and shaped policy options during the crises: they made horizontal differentiation unattractive, re-regulation ineffective, centralized risk and burden-sharing unfeasible, and the externalization of adjustment burdens to non-EU actors necessary by default. In conclusion, we explore possible escape routes from the trap.}, language = {en} } @article{DawsonBobić, author = {Dawson, Mark and Bobić, Ana}, title = {Quantitative easing at the Court of Justice - Doing whatever it takes to save the euro: Weiss and Others}, series = {Common Market Law Review}, volume = {56}, journal = {Common Market Law Review}, number = {4}, issn = {0165-0750}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-30368}, pages = {1005 -- 1040}, language = {en} } @article{DawsonLynskeyMuir, author = {Dawson, Mark and Lynskey, Orla and Muir, Elise}, title = {What is the Added Value of the Concept of the "Essence" of EU Fundamental Rights?}, series = {German Law Journal}, volume = {20}, journal = {German Law Journal}, number = {Special Issue 6}, doi = {10.1017/glj.2019.61}, pages = {763 -- 778}, abstract = {This Article introduces our Special Issue by posing a central question: What is the added value of the increasing prominence of the concept of the "essence" of fundamental rights in EU law? It will address this larger question in four steps: First, by examining the function of the concept in EU law and the methods for its derivation; second, by summarizing how its application diverges across EU—and international—law; third, by outlining some enduring difficulties with the essence concept; and finally, by reflecting on its future role in EU law, including its impact on other sites of legal authority—such as domestic fundamental rights, the political institutions of the EU, and international human rights law. As the other articles of this issue demonstrate, while there is not yet a coherent approach to deriving and understanding the essence of rights across the fundamental rights the EU must protects, the essence concept plays an increasingly significant role in demarcating the boundaries between the EU's legal and political orders and between overlapping sites of legal authority. Recent developments—such as the rule of law "crises"—are likely to further amplify the importance of "essence" to EU law practice and scholarship.}, language = {en} } @article{Dawson, author = {Dawson, Mark}, title = {The lost Spitzenkandidaten and the future of European democracy}, series = {Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law}, volume = {26}, journal = {Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law}, number = {6}, doi = {10.1177/1023263X19884434}, pages = {731 -- 735}, abstract = {This editorial critically examines the decision of EU leaders not to follow the 'Spitzenkandidaten' procedure when recently nominating the new President of the European Commission. It does so by situating that decision in a consociational model of democracy, that seeks to share political authority rather than link it directly to electoral processes. As the editorial argues, this model leaves the EU exposed to elitist critique and sits uneasily with certain aspects of Article 17(7) TEU. The review and renewal of the Spitzenkandidaten system promised by the incoming Commission President is thus sorely needed.}, language = {en} } @article{HaasD'ErmanSchulzetal., author = {Haas, J{\"o}rg and D'Erman, Valerie and Schulz, Daniel F. and Verdun, Amy}, title = {Measuring Economic Reform Recommendations under the European Semester: 'One Size Fits All' or Tailoring to Member States?}, series = {Journal of Contemporary European Research}, journal = {Journal of Contemporary European Research}, number = {15(2)}, issn = {1815-347X}, doi = {10.30950/jcer.v15i2.999}, pages = {194 -- 211}, abstract = {In 2010 the European Semester was created to better coordinate fiscal and economic policies within Europe's Economic and Monetary Union. The Semester aims to tackle economic imbalances by giving European Union (EU) member states country-specific recommendations (CSRs) regarding their public budgets as well as their wider economic and social policies with a view to enabling better policy coordination among Euro Area member states. In this article we develop a method to assess the way in which the CSRs have been addressing coordination and offer a systematic analysis of the way they have been formulated. We offer a way to code CSRs as well as one to analyse progress evaluations. Furthermore, we seek to use our results to address one of the reoccurring questions in the literature: whether the EU is pursuing a 'one size fits all' approach to economic policy making in the Euro Area? The findings indicate that different types of market economies and welfare states - different 'varieties of capitalism' - among the Euro Area members obtain different recommendations regarding different policy areas.}, language = {en} } @article{Kreilinger, author = {Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {From procedural disagreement to joint scrutiny? The Interparliamentary Conference on Stability, Economic Coordination and Governance}, series = {Perspectives on Federalism}, journal = {Perspectives on Federalism}, number = {10(3)}, issn = {2036-5438}, doi = {10.2478/pof-2018-0035}, pages = {155 -- 183}, abstract = {The provision of Article 13 TSCG to create an Interparliamentary Conference was the starting point for long discussions after which national parliaments and the European Parliament eventually reached a compromise. This article pursues a two-fold objective: It first examines the different phases of interparliamentary negotiations from 2012 to 2015. On the basis of a distinction between three competing models for interparliamentary cooperation, the article shows that the two models of EP-led scrutiny and creating a collective parliamentary counterweight did not prevail: Parliaments agreed that the new Interparliamentary Conference on Stability, Economic Coordination and Governance (SECG) would follow the 'standard' interparliamentary conference (COSAC model). In terms of national parliaments' actual participation, the lowest common denominator compromise has not changed the numbers of participating MPs: Attendance records are stable over time, the size of national delegations continues to vary and participating MPs are still twice as likely to be members of Budget or Finance committees than to be members of European affairs committees.}, language = {en} } @article{Kreilinger, author = {Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {Scrutinising the European Semester in national parliaments: what are the drivers of parliamentary involvement?}, series = {Journal of European Integration}, journal = {Journal of European Integration}, number = {40(3)}, issn = {1477-2280}, doi = {10.1080/07036337.2018.1450402}, pages = {325 -- 340}, abstract = {How exactly are national parliaments involved in the European Semester? The stronger coordination of fiscal and economic policies in the European Union (EU) in reaction to the sovereign debt crisis has forced national parliaments to adapt their procedures. This article examines how the European Semester is scrutinised and what factors have driven parliamentary activities in the French National Assembly, the German Bundestag, the Irish D{\´a}il and the Portuguese Assembleia between 2012 and 2017. Particularly noteworthy is that legal provisions for a parliamentary debate on the Stability Programme can be ignored in France, that the German Bundestag is much less active in the European Semester than in EU affairs or in the budget process and that the weakness of Ireland's parliament in the annual budget procedure affects its role in the European Semester. This article therefore suggests defining minimum standards for parliamentary involvement and strengthening interparliamentary cooperation.}, language = {en} } @article{BressanelliKoopReh, author = {Bressanelli, Edoardo and Koop, Christel and Reh, Christine}, title = {EU Actors under pressure: politicisation and depoliticisation as strategic responses}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {27}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2020.1713193}, pages = {329 -- 341}, abstract = {This contribution conceptualises bottom-up politicisation in Europe's multi-level system. EU-level actors, we argue, respond strategically to the functional and political pressures 'travelling up' from the member states. Perceiving domestic dissensus as either constraining or enabling, actors display both self-restraint and assertiveness in their responses. Motivated by the survival of the EU as a system 'under attack', and by the preservation of their own substantive and procedural powers, actors choose to either politicise or depoliticise decision-making, behaviour and policy outcomes at the supranational level. As a collection, this Special Issue demonstrate that the choices actors make 'under stress' at the EU-level - ranging from 'restrained depoliticisation' to 'assertive politicisation' - are, indeed, conditional on how bottom-up pressures are perceived and processed.}, language = {en} } @article{Bobzien, author = {Bobzien, Licia}, title = {Polarized perceptions, polarized preferences? Understanding the relationship between inequality and preferences for redistribution}, series = {Journal of European Social Policy}, journal = {Journal of European Social Policy}, doi = {10.1177/0958928719879282}, abstract = {When studying the relationship between inequality and preferences for redistribution, it is often assumed - either implicitly or explicitly - that individuals are informed about actual levels of inequality. Newer research, however, challenges this assumption and shows that perceived inequality differs from actual inequality. Empirically, these inequality perceptions are rather good predictors for preferences for redistribution. This article argues that individuals answer the standard question for measuring preferences for redistribution based on their inequality perceptions. I conduct a simple regression analysis based on two waves of the ISSP (1999 and 2009) and show that (1) inequality perceptions are systematically linked to socio-economic variables as well as to ideological beliefs rather than to actual inequality. Then, I disaggregate the variance in inequality perceptions to a part which is explainable by socio-economic and ideological determinants (the common control variables for explaining preferences for redistribution) and an unexplained part. I show that (2) the explained as well as the unexplained variance part is associated with preferences for redistribution. I argue that this finding makes considering inequality perceptions practically relevant since standard control variables do not fully account for variation in perceived inequality.}, language = {en} } @article{RohdeLiebenau, author = {Rohde-Liebenau, Judith}, title = {Raising European Citizens? European Identity in European Schools}, series = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, journal = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, edition = {2020}, doi = {10.1111/jcms.13050}, pages = {1 -- 19}, abstract = {Abstract Citizens' identification with Europe could consolidate European integration. European Schools, created for children of EU officials, should mirror the EU's vision of citizens of member states united in (national) diversity. Instead, this study reveals that European School students construct an explicitly European in-group and deviate from EU visions by differentiating themselves from a more national and less mobile lifestyle. The article draws on qualitative content analysis of in-depth and focus group interviews with teachers and 101 students in European Schools in Germany, Luxembourg and England. This elucidates the relationship between European schooling and this peculiar but ultimately European identity. In a dual mechanism, by 'doing Europe', students actively nourish a transnational social network in school; by 'telling Europe', students are more passively exposed to European and diverse national narratives. Both the analysis of how their European identity emerges and descriptive underpinnings show the complexity of European identity construction even under most favourable conditions.}, subject = {-}, language = {en} } @article{HaasD'ErmanSchulzetal., author = {Haas, J{\"o}rg and D'Erman, Valerie and Schulz, Daniel and Verdun, Amy}, title = {Economic and fiscal policy coordination after the crisis: is the European Semester promoting more or less state intervention?}, series = {Journal of European Integration}, volume = {42}, journal = {Journal of European Integration}, number = {3}, issn = {1477-2280}, doi = {10.1080/07036337.2020.1730356}, pages = {327 -- 344}, abstract = {The European Union (EU) - and its Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in particular - is often criticized as a predominantly market-oriented project. We analyse to what extent such claims can be substantiated by focusing on one key aspect of the EU's post-crisis framework for economic governance: the country-specific recommendations (CSRs) that the EU has been issuing annually since 2011. Based on an original dataset, we analyse more than 1300 CSRs, which show that the EU does not push uniformly for less state intervention. Rather, the CSRs tend to suggest fiscal restraint and less protection for labour market insiders, while simultaneously promoting measures that benefit vulnerable groups in society. During the second decade of EMU, CSRs have gradually become more permissive of higher public spending and more in favour of worker protection, while the share of recommendations advocating more social protection has stagnated at a high level.}, language = {en} } @article{Maricut‐Akbik, author = {Maricut-Akbik, Adina}, title = {Q\&A in legislative oversight: A framework for analysis}, series = {European Journal of Political Research}, journal = {European Journal of Political Research}, doi = {10.1111/1475-6765.12411}, pages = {n/a -- n/a}, abstract = {Abstract Parliamentary questions are an essential tool of legislative oversight. However, the extent to which they are effective in controlling the executive remains underspecified both theoretically and methodologically. This article advances a systematic framework for evaluating the effectiveness of parliamentary questions drawing on principal-agent theory, the public administration literature on accountability and communication research. The framework is called the 'Q\&A approach to legislative oversight' based on the premise that the study of parliamentary questions (Q) needs to be linked to their respective answers (A) and examined together (Q\&A) at the micro-level as an exchange of claims between legislative and executive actors. Methodologically, the Q\&A approach to legislative oversight offers a step-by-step guide for qualitative content analysis of Q\&A that can be applied to different legislative oversight contexts at different levels of governance. It is argued that the effectiveness of Q\&A depends on the strength of the questions asked and the responsiveness of answers provided, which are correspondingly operationalised. To illustrate the merits of the approach, the article includes a systematic case study on the relationship between the European Parliament and the European Central Bank in banking supervision (2013-2018), showing the connection between specific institutional settings and the effectiveness of parliamentary questions.}, subject = {-}, language = {en} } @article{Migliorati, author = {Migliorati, Marta}, title = {The Post-agencification Stage between Reforms and Crises. A Comparative Assessment of EU agencies' Budgetary Development}, series = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, journal = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, doi = {10.1111/jcms.13044}, pages = {1 -- 20}, subject = {-}, language = {en} } @article{JergO'ReillySchulzeBuschoff, author = {Jerg, Lukas and O'Reilly, Jacqueline and Schulze Buschoff, Karin}, title = {Adapting social protection to the needs of multiple jobholders in Denmark, the United Kingdom and Germany}, series = {Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research}, volume = {27}, journal = {Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research}, number = {2}, issn = {1996-7284}, doi = {10.1177/1024258921991039}, pages = {237 -- 253}, abstract = {Working in two or more jobs at the same time creates special needs in terms of social security that differ from those of standard dependent employees or the self-employed. To investigate how well social security systems adapt to multiple jobholders we examine three case studies of countries with different levels and trends in multiple jobholding: Denmark, the United Kingdom and Germany. We review recent trends and policies to address social protection gaps for multiple jobholders in these countries prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the extent to which the emergence of the 'platform economy' can exacerbate multiple jobholding. We conclude that attempts to resolve the gaps in social security protection reflect distinctive characteristics of each employment system.}, language = {en} } @article{BobićDawson, author = {Bobić, Ana and Dawson, Mark}, title = {Making sense of the "incomprehensible": The PSPP Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court}, series = {Common Market Law Review}, volume = {57}, journal = {Common Market Law Review}, number = {6}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-36925}, pages = {1953 -- 1998}, language = {en} } @article{DawsonMaricutAkbik, author = {Dawson, Mark and Maricut-Akbik, Adina}, title = {Procedural vs substantive accountability in EMU governance: between payoffs and trade-offs}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2020.1797145}, pages = {1 -- 20}, abstract = {his article introduces a new normative framework for analysing accountability in the European Union's Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The framework is anchored in four normative 'goods' that accountability is supposed to ensure: openness, non-arbitrariness, effectiveness, and publicness. All of these can be achieved in a procedural or substantive way, depending on whether actors are held accountable for the quality of their decision-making processes or for the actual merit of their decisions. Transposed to EMU, this conceptualisation shows both the payoffs and trade-offs of prioritising procedural accountability. Using different examples across EMU governance, the article illustrates how current mechanisms of political, legal, and administrative accountability predominantly evaluate the procedures followed by EU institutions when performing their tasks. While such an approach can bring clarity, predictability, and autonomy for the actors involved, it distracts attention from the substantive assessment of EMU decisions. The article contributes to the EMU accountability literature by going beyond principal-agent expectations of democratic control rooted in the nation-state or legal debates about principles for accountable behaviour found in EU Treaties. The EMU, and the EU more broadly, need a different perspective on accountability focused on generally-applicable standards for holding power to account.}, language = {en} } @article{FreudlspergerWeinrich, author = {Freudlsperger, Christian and Weinrich, Martin}, title = {Decentralized EU Policy Coordination in Crisis? The Case of Germany}, series = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, journal = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, doi = {10.1111/jcms.13159}, pages = {n/a -- n/a}, abstract = {Abstract Europeanization research found no general convergence towards centralized EU policy coordination, despite decentralized systems' comparatively slow and ineffective position-taking. Does this finding hold against the threat, urgency, and uncertainty exerted by recent years' polycrisis? We posit that decentralized systems indeed persist, albeit in a three-step reactive sequence in which situational centralization during crises dialectically reinforces decentralization in the long run. First, the prime minister's office harnesses a crisis to acquire hierarchical control of position-taking. Second, to exploit the deep expertise of the bureaucracy and maximize its bargaining power on the EU-level, it co-opts a lead ministry. Third, due to the institutional underpinnings of the decentralized system, the lead ministry, rather than the prime minister's office, eventually retains the administrative capacities created in crisis. We illustrate this causal mechanism in a comparison of the German government's EU policy coordination during the Eurozone and Schengen crises.}, subject = {-}, language = {en} } @article{WoźniakowskiMaatschMiklin, author = {Wo{\'{z}}niakowski, Tomasz P. and Maatsch, Aleksandra and Miklin, Eric}, title = {Rising to a Challenge? Ten Years of Parliamentary Accountability of the European Semester}, series = {Politics and Governance}, volume = {9}, journal = {Politics and Governance}, number = {3}, issn = {2183-2463}, doi = {10.17645/pag.v9i3.4690}, abstract = {As a result of the euro crisis, EU economic governance has been reformed and EU institutions have gained new competences regarding national budgets, with the European Semester (the annual cycle of economic surveillance of the member states) being the most prominent example. With the Commission and the Council being the main actors, and the European Parliament playing only a minor role, a debate about the democratic legitimacy of the Semester and the role of national parliaments (NPs) in this regard has unfolded. This thematic issue, therefore, addresses the question of how parliamentary accountability of the European Semester has evolved: Have NPs met the challenge by adapting to the new situation in a way that allows them to hold the executive accountable? While the contributions to this thematic issue show significant variation across NPs, overall they reveal a rather pessimistic picture: Despite several institutional innovations concerning the reforms of internal rules and procedures, the rise of independent fiscal institutions, inter-parliamentary cooperation, and hearings with the European Commissioners, NPs have remained rather weak actors in EU economic governance also ten years after the Semester's introduction. Whether recent changes linked to the establishment of the Recovery and Resilience Facility introduced in response to the Covid-19 crisis will change the picture significantly remains to be examined.}, language = {en} } @article{Woźniakowski, author = {Wo{\'{z}}niakowski, Tomasz P.}, title = {Accountability in EU Economic Governance: European Commissioners in Polish Parliament}, series = {Politics and Governance}, volume = {9}, journal = {Politics and Governance}, number = {3}, issn = {2183-2463}, doi = {10.17645/pag.v9i3.4335}, abstract = {This article analyses the interactions between the members of the Polish parliament with the European commissioners in the context of the European Semester, the annual cycle of economic coordination. The Commission drafts crucial documents in this process which assess the implementation of the Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs): the Annual (Sustainable) Growth Survey and the Country Reports. The goal of this article is to assess how the Commission is held to account by a national parliament and how this affects the level of implementation of CSRs. The findings suggest that the Commission is accountable to this national parliament, even if the form of accountability taken is rather innovative and its policy impact limited, at both the EU (the CSRs tend to be immune to Members of [national] Parliament's contestation) and the national level, as the implementation of CSRs seems to be independent of the level of their scrutiny.}, language = {en} } @article{MaherRiordanŠubic, author = {Maher, Imelda and Riordan, R{\´o}n{\´a}n and Šubic, Neza}, title = {The European Arrest Warrant Before the Irish Courts: Judicial Dialogue, Mutual Trust, and the Limits of Interpretation}, series = {The Irish Jurist}, volume = {67}, journal = {The Irish Jurist}, pages = {14 -- 54}, language = {en} } @article{FlonkJachtenfuchsObendiek, author = {Flonk, Danielle and Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Obendiek, Anke S.}, title = {Authority conflicts in internet governance: Liberals vs. sovereigntists?}, series = {Global Constitutionalism}, volume = {9}, journal = {Global Constitutionalism}, number = {2}, issn = {2045-3817}, doi = {10.1017/S2045381720000167}, pages = {364 -- 386}, abstract = {We analyse conflicts over norms and institutions in internet governance. In this emerging field, dispute settlement is less institutionalised and conflicts take place at a foundational level. Internet governance features two competing spheres of authority characterised by fundamentally diverging social purposes: A more consolidated liberal sphere emphasises a limited role of the state, private and multistakeholder governance and freedom of speech. A sovereigntist challenger sphere emphasises state control, intergovernmentalism and push against the preponderance of Western institutions and private actors. We trace the activation and evolution of conflict between these spheres with regard to norms and institutions in four instances: the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12), the fifth session of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) and the Budapest Convention of the Council of Europe. We observe intense norm collisions, and strategic attempts at competitive regime creation and regime shifting towards intergovernmental structures by the sovereigntist sphere. Despite these aggressive attempts at creating new institutions and norms, the existing internet governance order is still in place. Hence, authority conflicts in global internet governance do not necessarily lead to fragmentation.}, language = {en} } @article{RodgerMaherRiordan, author = {Rodger, Barry and Maher, Imelda and Riordan, R{\´o}n{\´a}n}, title = {A Decade of EU Law in the Courts of Scotland and Ireland: National Legal Systems Compared}, series = {Legal Studies}, journal = {Legal Studies}, edition = {2021}, issn = {1748-121X}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-3598}, pages = {1 -- 25}, abstract = {This article is the first to undertake a comparative statistical study examining the application and trends in European Union ('EU') law before the Scottish and Irish courts over a ten year period from 2009 - 2018. The paper poses the question, how does European integration impact on the domestic legal systems of EU Member States due to the increasing volume, and significance, of cases where EU law is raised and applied within domestic legal systems? It highlights similarities and differences between the two jurisdictions and the fields of law where EU law has been most prominent. The research, focussing on civil law matters, is of particular relevance in light of Brexit. It highlights the potential difficulties implicit in attempting to unpick over 40 years of assimilation of EU law and principles into Scots law and lays the groundwork for a further comparative study after another 10 years on the extent of the impact of Brexit in Scotland and Ireland.}, language = {en} } @article{Riordan, author = {Riordan, R{\´o}n{\´a}n}, title = {Popular sovereignty in the Irish context: The deployment of the Referendum to resolve disputes, uphold decisions, and legitimate state acts in the eyes of Citizens}, series = {UCD S.L.S. Law Journal}, journal = {UCD S.L.S. Law Journal}, edition = {UCD SLS 80 years of Bunreacht na h{\´E}ireann}, issn = {1649-1327}, pages = {103 -- 108}, language = {en} } @article{BremerGenschelJachtenfuchs, author = {Bremer, Bj{\"o}rn and Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Juncker's Curse? Identity, Interest, and Public Support for the Integration of Core State Powers†}, series = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, volume = {58}, journal = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, number = {1}, issn = {1468-5965}, doi = {10.1111/jcms.12980}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-36077}, pages = {56 -- 75}, abstract = {Abstract In this study we analysed the patterns and covariates of public support for the European integration of core state powers based on an original new survey. We found considerable variation across integration instruments, member states and policy issues. Horizontal transfers are supported more than vertical capacity building; member states from the EU's South-East are more supportive than states from the North-West; and support increases from debt relief to unemployment assistance, sharing the burdens of refugees, and military defence to disaster aid. Identity is a strong and fairly consistent predictor for individual variations in support. The association with respondents' interest is less consistent, but can be quite strong with respect to specific policy issues such as debt and unemployment. Overall, support for the integration of core state powers is higher and more variable than expected. This suggests there is considerable room for political agency rather than a general constraining dissensus.}, subject = {-}, language = {en} } @article{DawsonMaricutAkbik, author = {Dawson, Mark and Maricut-Akbik, Adina}, title = {Accountability in the EU's para-regulatory state: The case of the Economic and Monetary Union}, series = {Regulation \& Governance}, journal = {Regulation \& Governance}, doi = {10.1111/rego.12442}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-42704}, pages = {1 -- 16}, abstract = {This article revisits Majone's famous argument about accountability in the regulatory state in reference to the European Union's (EU) Economic and Monetary Union. We show that the EU has entered the stage of a "para-regulatory state" marked by increasing EU regulation in areas linked to core state powers. Despite the redistributive and politicized nature of these policy areas, the EU's "para-regulatory state" has continued to rely on its regulatory model of accountability, focused on decisionmaking processes, and interest mediation. In line with Majone, we describe the model as procedural and contrast it to substantive accountability - which is necessary when regulation has clear redistributive implications. Using two case studies from fiscal policy and monetary affairs, we illustrate the predominance of procedural accountability as exercised by the European Parliament and EU Courts. We complement the empirical analysis with a normative discussion of how substantive accountability could potentially be rendered in both fields.}, language = {en} } @article{RedekerWalter, author = {Redeker, Nils and Walter, Stefanie}, title = {We'd rather pay than change the politics of German non-adjustment in the Eurozone crisis}, series = {The Review of International Organizations}, volume = {15}, journal = {The Review of International Organizations}, issn = {Electronic ISSN 1559-744X, Print ISSN 1559-7431}, doi = {10.1007/s11558-020-09390-1}, pages = {573 -- 599}, abstract = {Germany's large current account surplus has been widely criticized, especially against the backdrop of the role of macroeconomic imbalances in the Eurozone crisis. We argue that Germany's resistance to reduce its massive current account surplus through an expansionary policy at home is rooted in distributive struggles about the design of possible adjustment policies. To explore this argument, we leverage original survey data from 135 German economic interest groups, qualitative interviews with interest group representatives and policymakers, and data from public opinion surveys. We show that while there is general support for internal adjustment among German interest groups, they disagree heavily about which specific policies should be implemented to achieve this goal. Together with a broad public and elite-based consensus to avoid a break-up of the Eurozone, this polarization turns financing into a politically attractive strategy. Rather than being rooted only in German ordoliberal ideas or Germany's export-oriented structure, distributive conflicts contribute significantly to Germany's resistance to reduce its large current-account surplus. Because similar dynamics can be observed in other surplus countries, we argue that distributive struggles within surplus countries played an important role in interstate conflicts about the management of the crisis.}, language = {en} } @article{Redeker, author = {Redeker, Nils}, title = {The Politics of Stashing Wealth: The Decline of Labor Power and the Global Rise in Corporate Savings}, series = {The Journal of Politics}, volume = {84}, journal = {The Journal of Politics}, number = {2}, issn = {ISSN: 0022-3816, E-ISSN: 1468-2508}, doi = {10.1086/716298}, pages = {975 -- 991}, abstract = {This article investigates the political roots of the global rise in corporate savings. In recent years, firms throughout advanced economies have started to accumulate enormous savings. Instead of using their revenues to reinvest or raise wages, many companies now stash their profits within financial markets, contributing to sluggish growth, financial fragilities, and rising inequality. I argue that political institutions that determine the balance of power between firms and employees play an important role in shaping this trend. The stronger unions are, the more they pressure firms into using revenues for pay increases and investment. The more unions' influence erodes, the stronger the rise of savings. Using panel data from 25 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries as well as a regression discontinuity design leveraging the German law on codetermination, I find robust and causal evidence supporting this claim. These results have implications for our broader understanding of how political institutions affect financial imbalances and economic inequality.}, language = {en} } @article{RedekerRommel, author = {Redeker, Nils and Rommel, Tobias}, title = {Misremembering Weimar: Hyperinflation, the Great Depression, and German collective economic memory}, series = {Economics \& Politics}, volume = {33}, journal = {Economics \& Politics}, number = {3}, issn = {1468-0343}, doi = {10.1111/ecpo.12182}, pages = {664 -- 686}, abstract = {The well-known German aversion to inflation has attracted a lot of interest and is often attributed to a specific historical memory: Weimar. Yet we do not know much about why hyperinflation seems to overshadow the Great Depression in German collective economic memory. To answer this question, we study what exactly it is that Germans believe to remember about their past. Using original survey data, we show that many Germans do not distinguish between hyperinflation and the Great Depression, but see them as two dimensions of the same crisis. They conflate Weimar economic history into one big crisis, encompassing both rapidly rising prices and mass unemployment. Additionally, more educated and politically interested Germans are more likely to commit this fallacy. Our finding thus nuances ideational explanations for Germany's economic policy stance in the European Union.}, language = {en} } @article{MiglioratiVignoli, author = {Migliorati, Marta and Vignoli, Valerio}, title = {When politicization meets ideology: the European Parliament and free trade agreements}, series = {Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica}, journal = {Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica}, issn = {0048-8402 (Print), 2057-4908 (Online)}, doi = {10.1017/ipo.2021.50}, pages = {1 -- 16}, abstract = {Since the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament (EP) has considerably increased its competencies in European Union (EU) trade policy. At the same time, a 'new generation' of free trade agreements (FTAs), including the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United States, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada, and the agreement with Japan, have been negotiated by the European Commission. Although existing literature has tackled the process of the EP's institutional self-empowerment in this policy area, there is no systematic research investigating the lines of conflict within the EP over FTAs. Through a newly collected dataset of all EP plenary debates between 2009 and 2019 on six relevant FTAs, we extract EP Members' (MEPs) preferences by means of a manual textual analysis. We then test the explanatory power of the two traditional lines of cleavages within the EP over MEPs stated preferences: position on the left-right axis and support for EU integration. We find that both these dimensions fundamentally shape the conflict in the EP over FTAs. The impact of these two ideological cleavages is magnified in the context of politicized FTAs, namely the TTIP and CETA. Through these findings, the paper significantly contributes to the research on competition in the EP and, more broadly, to the understanding of EU trade policy and its emerging politicization dynamics.}, language = {en} } @article{Migliorati, author = {Migliorati, Marta}, title = {Postfunctional differentiation, functional reintegration: the Danish case in Justice and Home Affairs}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {29}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {7}, issn = {Print ISSN: 1350-1763 Online ISSN: 1466-4429}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2021.1921831}, pages = {1112 -- 1134}, abstract = {Previous research shows that Differentiated Integration (DI) in areas of core state powers works according to a postfunctional logic, in response to concerns about national autonomy and sovereignty. Against this backdrop, scholars usually expect that the policies and practices ensuing from formal DI are equally differentiated. This article presents theoretical and empirical evidence to suggest otherwise. It argues that, while postfunctionalism explains the emergence of formal DI, its practical consequences are driven by functional pressures. The interdependencies produced by the integration process create functional incentives for states with opt-outs to work towards 'reintegration' by converging with EU policies. The result of this process is a decoupling between differentiated rules and similar practices. The plausibility of this argument is tested by applying process tracing techniques to the case of Denmark in Justice and Home Affairs.}, language = {en} } @article{Migliorati, author = {Migliorati, Marta}, title = {Where does implementation lie? Assessing the determinants of delegation and discretion in post-Maastricht European Union}, series = {Journal of Public Policy}, volume = {41}, journal = {Journal of Public Policy}, number = {3}, issn = {0143-814X (Print), 1469-7815 (Online)}, doi = {10.1017/S0143814X20000100}, pages = {489 -- 514}, abstract = {Drawing on a principal-agent framework the article analyses the European Union (EU) politics of delegation in the post-Maastricht era. By means of statistical analysis, it tests the impact of several variables upon the selection of national and supranational agents, as well as on the discretion they enjoy, on the basis of a recently collected data set of EU laws. Findings reveal that pooling and policy complexity favour the involvement of supranational actors in the implementation of EU laws. Moreover, the degree of supranational integration of a policy affects the likelihood of choosing supranational implementers. On the one hand, the Commission enjoys higher discretion vis-{\`a}-vis national actors when qualified majority voting applies, and when higher levels of conflict in the Council of Ministers is present. On the other, conflict between the European Parliament and the Council under codecision seems associated with lower supranational discretion, although the result needs further corroboration.}, language = {en} } @article{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {Constructive Versus Destructive Conflict: Taking Stock of the Recent Constitutional Jurisprudence in the EU}, series = {Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies}, volume = {22}, journal = {Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies}, issn = {1528-8870 (Print), 2049-7636 (Online)}, doi = {10.1017/cel.2020.9}, pages = {60 -- 84}, language = {en} } @article{Bobić, author = {Bobić, Ana}, title = {Developments in The EU-German Judicial Love Story: The Right To Be Forgotten II}, series = {German Law Journal}, volume = {21}, journal = {German Law Journal}, number = {S1}, issn = {2071-8322}, doi = {10.1017/glj.2020.15}, pages = {31 -- 39}, abstract = {The relationship between the Court of Justice and the Bundesverfassungsgericht is perhaps one of the most explored relationships in all of EU's legal history. In attempting to understand and operationalize the uncertainty surrounding the positioning between EU and national constitutional orders, they have in some respects followed the footsteps of a typical life-long love story: in the early years of European integration, both courts appeared to be in denial of any romance, and entered into a conflict over the question of the final arbiter; they subsequently turned to flirting by moving away from an institutionally based conflict towards finding a common substantive ground; which resulted in finally abandoning the competition for domination, but rather embracing mutual respect and a heterarchical relationship. This brief piece follows these developments in fundamental rights review that for now end with the second German decision concerning the right to be forgotten.}, language = {en} } @article{FreudlspergerJachtenfuchs, author = {Freudlsperger, Christian and Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {A member state like any other? Germany and the European integration of core state powers}, series = {Journal of European Integration}, volume = {43}, journal = {Journal of European Integration}, number = {2}, issn = {Print ISSN: 0703-6337, Online ISSN: 1477-2280}, doi = {10.1080/07036337.2021.1877695}, pages = {117 -- 135}, abstract = {The EU has integrated core state powers in a largely unsustainable manner. Why is this? In this introduction to a special issue on Germany, we take an in-depth look at national preference-formation. We trace the impact of state elites, as emphasised by functionalist theories, and mass publics and political parties, as stressed by postfunctionalism. We find that across policy fields and with striking continuity over time, Germany acts as a normal member state. The country prefers the regulation of national capacities over the creation of European capacities, and (increasingly) the intergovernmental rather than supranational control of those capacities. Only in existential crises, Germany supports European capacity-building under intergovernmental control. This leads to unstable integration but is not an indicator of hegemonic dominance. Crucial from both a practical and theoretical perspective, there exists no major gap between state elites and political parties or public opinion on German preferences.}, language = {en} } @article{DerminePatrin, author = {Dermine, Paul and Patrin, Maria}, title = {Between Law and Politics—The Emergence of an EU Industrial Policy}, series = {Governance}, volume = {39}, journal = {Governance}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, doi = {10.1111/gove.70085}, abstract = {How do law and politics interact in shaping the relationship between the state and markets? To what extent can the law break free from the political and ideological beliefs which brought it about, and be repurposed to adjust to evolving assumptions and a new political-economic Zeitgeist? This paper explores how the dynamics between law and politics play out in the context of the European Union as a multi-level polity, where economic powers and prerogatives are distributed across different levels of government and where the central government enjoys limited, conferred powers. Drawing on the "Integration through Law" literature and institutional change theories, the paper investigates the evolution of EU industrial policy and its legal architecture. It lays out the legal rules and conditions under which industrial policy has traditionally operated in the EU. It further discusses how this framework is shifting following changing economic and political priorities that favor more activist forms of economic and industrial policy. The paper argues that the law can both act as a constraining, limiting factor, or as an enabler of EU industrial policy initiatives. On the one hand primary law principles and competences fundamentally inhibit the pursuit of activist industrial policies in Europe. On the other hand, a number of second-order resources can be mobilized and "converted" to bring about an EU industrial policy. The paper finally reflects on the risks and challenges of repurposing legal rules for political ends, highlighting issues of consistency, efficiency and legitimacy.}, language = {en} } @article{GenschelJachtenfuchs, author = {Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Capacity-Building and the New Intergovernmentalism}, series = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, volume = {63}, journal = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, number = {S1}, doi = {10.1111/jcms.13755}, pages = {65 -- 76}, language = {en} } @article{Dawson, author = {Dawson, Mark}, title = {Fundamental Rights in European Union Policy-making: The Effects and Advantages of Institutional Diversity}, series = {Human Rights Law Review}, volume = {20}, journal = {Human Rights Law Review}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1093/hrlr/ngaa002}, pages = {50 -- 73}, abstract = {This article investigates how the European Union's political process affects the level of rights protection afforded by European Union (EU) law. It does so in two steps, firstly by analysing how institutional politics plays an important role in the evolution of the EU fundamental rights framework and secondly by demonstrating empirically how legislative interaction affects the level of protection provided by three important EU legislative acts. As the article will demonstrate, this interaction tends to result in the overall level of rights protection being increased. Analysing this finding, the article uses institutionalist theory to argue that the EU's political process carries certain positive effects: the diversity of the legislative process (both within and between institutions) makes the explicit overlooking of rights-based concerns difficult. These findings carry implications for the increasing tendency to channel EU law and policy outside of the 'ordinary' legislative process.}, language = {en} } @article{Dawson, author = {Dawson, Mark}, title = {How Can EU Law Respond to Populism?}, series = {Oxford Journal of Legal Studies}, volume = {40}, journal = {Oxford Journal of Legal Studies}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1093/ojls/gqaa002}, pages = {183 -- 213}, abstract = {The rise in Europe of populist movements has created severe anxiety about the stability of the EU legal order. This article argues that, while populist ideas challenge numerous elements of the EU's constitutional settlement, there exists no fundamental incompatibility between populism and EU law. By comparing its response to populism with attempts by EU law to stabilise its legal order in the face of political contestation arising from other political cleavages, the article discusses three different ways to understand the interaction between EU law and populism. EU law may seek to 'survive' the growth of populism by (i) bracketing or insulating its institutions from populist contestation, (ii) accommodating populist ideas or (iii) confronting the constitutional strategies populists utilise domestically. In examining the constitutional foundations of populism and its relation to emerging doctrines of EU law, the article seeks to build a road map of how populist movements might utilise or resist EU law in their development.}, language = {en} } @article{Dawson, author = {Dawson, Mark}, title = {Coping with Exit, Evasion, and Subversion in EU Law}, series = {German Law Journal}, journal = {German Law Journal}, number = {Special Issue 1}, edition = {21}, doi = {10.1017/glj.2019.95}, pages = {51 -- 56}, language = {en} } @article{KoopRehBressanelli2021, author = {Koop, Christel and Reh, Christine and Bressanelli, Edoardo}, title = {Agenda-setting under pressure: Does domestic politics influence the European Commission?}, series = {European Journal of Political Research}, volume = {61}, journal = {European Journal of Political Research}, number = {1}, edition = {European Journal of Political Research}, doi = {10.1111/1475-6765.12438}, pages = {46 -- 66}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The European Union (EU) has become increasingly visible and contested over the past decades. Several studies have shown that domestic pressure has made the EU's 'electorally connected' institutions more responsive. Yet, we still know little about how politicisation has affected the Union's non-majoritarian institutions. We address this question by focusing on agenda-setting and ask whether and how domestic politics influences the prioritisation of legislative proposals by the European Commission. We argue that the Commission, as both a policy-seeker and a survival-driven bureaucracy, will respond to domestic issue salience and Euroscepticism, at party, mass and electoral level, through targeted performance and through aggregate restraint. Building on new data on the prioritisation of legislative proposals under the ordinary legislative procedure (1999-2019), our analysis shows that the Commission's choice to prioritise is responsive to the salience of policy issues for Europe's citizens. By contrast, our evidence suggests that governing parties' issue salience does not drive, and Euroscepticism does not constrain, the Commission's priority-setting. Our findings contribute to the literature on multilevel politics, shedding new light on the strategic responses of non-majoritarian institutions to the domestic politicisation of 'Europe'.}, language = {en} } @article{FerraraHaasPetersonetal., author = {Ferrara, Federico Maria and Haas, J{\"o}rg and Peterson, Andrew and Sattler, Thomas}, title = {Exports vs. investment: How political discourse shapes popular support for external imbalances}, series = {Socio-Economic Review}, journal = {Socio-Economic Review}, issn = {1475-147X}, doi = {10.1093/ser/mwab004}, abstract = {The economic imbalances that characterize the world economy have unequally distributed costs and benefits. That raises the question of how countries could run long-term external surpluses and deficits without significant opposition against the policies that generate them. We show that political discourse helps to secure public support for these policies and the resulting economic outcomes. First, a content analysis of 32 000 newspaper articles finds that the dominant interpretations of current account balances in Australia and Germany concur with very distinct perspectives: external surpluses are seen as evidence of competitiveness in Germany, while external deficits are interpreted as evidence of attractiveness for investments in Australia. Second, survey experiments in both countries suggest that exposure to these diverging interpretations has a causal effect on citizens' support for their country's economic strategy. Political discourse, thus, is crucial to provide the societal foundation of national growth strategies.}, language = {en} } @article{DawsonBertolini, author = {Dawson, Mark and Bertolini, Elena}, title = {Fundamental Rights as Constraints to and Triggers for Differentiated Integration}, series = {Swiss Political Science Review}, volume = {27}, journal = {Swiss Political Science Review}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1111/spsr.12443}, pages = {637 -- 653}, abstract = {When looking for possible constraints on Differentiated Integration, the fundamental values of the European Union (EU) seem an obvious starting point. Both the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the values articulated in Art. 2 TEU are cross-cutting across EU states. However, while fundamental values have acted as centralising devices in other federal settings, in an EU context marked by extensive value disagreement, they may also act as pathways for differentiation. Insofar as national constitutional orders disagree on the scope of EU rights, attempts to ground EU law in fundamental values trigger inevitable interpretive conflicts across states. This paper will use the examples of asylum and the European Arrest Warrant to demonstrate this argument: while EU law may use fundamental values as a reason to harmonise EU law across states, such values may also be invoked to question the principle of mutual trust underlying the EU legal order, thereby causing rather than limiting differentiation.}, language = {en} } @article{Dawson, author = {Dawson, Mark}, title = {The accountability of non-governmental actors in the digital sphere: A theoretical framework}, series = {European Law Journal}, journal = {European Law Journal}, doi = {10.1111/eulj.12420}, abstract = {The last decade has seen increasing demands for greater accountability in digital governance. What, however, does accountability require and what normative goods does it serve? This article develops a general framework for assessing digital accountability focused on four normative goods: openness, non-arbitrariness, effectiveness and publicness. As the article will evidence, claims for digital accountability often refer to deficits relating to one or more of these goods. While scholarly attention has deservedly focused on tying powerful digital actors to rule of law guarantees, the article argues that accountability offers an important normative yardstick to allow citizens to contest digital decisions beyond strict legality. The framework therefore provides a basis for both conceptually disaggregating and normatively forwarding accountability claims in the digital sphere.}, language = {en} } @article{Dawson, author = {Dawson, Mark}, title = {What Does it Mean to Say that the Court of Justice is not a Human Rights Institution? A Critical Appraisal}, series = {Journal of Human Rights Practice}, volume = {4}, journal = {Journal of Human Rights Practice}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1093/jhuman/huab023}, pages = {215 -- 222}, abstract = {What role does the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and EU law play in elaborating the rights and principles embodied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)? Over the last 20 years, human (or 'fundamental') rights have become a constant part of the way the CJEU interprets and applies EU law. In a period where fundamental rights and values are increasingly under threat both globally and in Europe, judicial institutions remain an important last bastion of protection. Commenting on Judge Rosas' (2007) observation that the CJEU is not in fact a human rights Court, three critical questions are derived: The first question is the most related to this special issue. What does the development of the CJEU—an institution with human rights responsibilities—mean for general international human rights law? The second takes up Judge Rosas' observation that the CJEU, unlike the Strasbourg Court, has extensive judicial responsibilities beyond human rights. What does the development of EU human rights law mean for EU law more broadly? Finally, if Judge Rosas is right that the CJEU is not a human rights Court, what does that mean for its relationship to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the other organs of the Council of Europe? In answer to this last question, the article cautiously advances the argument that the very fact that the CJEU is not a human rights Court implies a more robust role than Judge Rosas suggests for external review of EU law by international human rights bodies.}, language = {en} } @article{KoopReh, author = {Koop, Christel and Reh, Christine}, title = {Europe's Bank and Europe's Citizens: Accountability, transparency - legitimacy?}, series = {Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law}, volume = {26}, journal = {Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1177/1023263X19827906}, pages = {63 -- 80}, abstract = {Since the Eurozone crisis, critique of the European Central Bank (ECB) has centred on the Bank's lack of acceptance by Europe's citizens. One prominent strand of the debate argues that such acceptance can be enhanced by ensuring higher levels of compliance with the democratic standards of accountability and transparency. This article critically assesses this 'standards-support nexus' and its underlying assumptions. We suggest that three conditions need to be fulfilled for the argument to hold: (i) citizens are aware of the ECB and its design; (ii) citizens prioritise democratic standards over alternative motivations for acceptance; and (iii) citizens are able to differentiate between the ECB and the European Union's wider multilevel system. Drawing from the established literature on support for European integration and trust in the ECB and from descriptive Eurobarometer data, we conclude that these three conditions are unlikely to bear out empirically. Moreover, increasing the ECB's accountability and transparency in times of crisis and heightened politicisation could adversely affect the Bank's policy-performance and public image. Hence, whilst not questioning the normative desirability of accountability and transparency, we caution against assuming too easily that such democratic standards alone will enhance citizen support, and against assuming that they come without trade-offs.}, language = {en} } @article{RohdeLiebenau, author = {Rohde-Liebenau, Judith}, title = {EU identity visions and narratives of 'us' and 'them' in European Schools}, series = {European Societies}, volume = {24}, journal = {European Societies}, number = {4}, doi = {10.1080/14616696.2022.2101679}, pages = {409 -- 430}, abstract = {In 'European Schools', created for children of EU officials, narratives of European identity among students could match EU visions. Yet, students' individual narrations of their identities are more complex. The study systematises these narratives of Europeanness: cosmopolitan, multinational and transnational notions of 'us' and 'them'. Qualitative thematic analysis provides perspectives on what 'being (not) European' means for EU, European Schools and teachers - and most importantly, it disentangles identity narratives of European School students. Based on interviewing 101 students across three schools, the analysis shows that EU and European School propositions of a multinational European identity differ from teachers' and students' cosmopolitan and transnational narratives. At the EU level, Europeanness implies an 'out-group' of a nationalist, war-torn past. Students contradict EU visions by widening teachers' antinationalist narrative and excluding people within Europe. They exclude intolerant and narrow-minded, but more generally people who are more national and less mobile than their 'in-group'. Systematically comparing European identity narratives thus helps to uncover these contradictions. Not all narratives about Europe are available to everyone and individual opportunities to partake in mobile, multilingual Europeanness need reconsideration.}, language = {en} } @article{MaricutAkbik, author = {Maricut-Akbik, Adina}, title = {Contesting the European Central Bank in Banking Supervision:Accountability in Practice at the European Parliament}, series = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, volume = {58}, journal = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, number = {5}, doi = {10.1111/jcms.13024}, pages = {1199 -- 1214}, abstract = {The establishment of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) raised expectations regarding theability of the European Parliament (EP) to hold the European Central Bank (ECB) accountable forits decisions. This article examines the accountability interactions between the two institutions inthefirst years of the functioning of the SSM (2013-18). The focus is on the extent to which the EPcontests ECB supervisory decisions in practice through letters and public hearings. The analysisshows a frequently-used infrastructure of political accountability that is however limited in ensur-ing the contestation of ECB conduct in banking supervision. The study identifies problems withthe performance of the EP as an accountability forum and with the tight confidentiality rules ofthe SSM, which allow the ECB to silence contestation on many politically salient issues. Thefind-ings are based on an innovative analytical framework on the study of accountability interactions.}, language = {en} } @article{MaricutAkbik, author = {Maricut-Akbik, Adina}, title = {Speaking on Europe's behalf: EU discourses of representation during the refugee crisis}, series = {Journal of European Integration}, volume = {43}, journal = {Journal of European Integration}, number = {7}, doi = {10.1080/07036337.2020.1855157}, pages = {781 -- 798}, abstract = {This article aims to understand the lack of consensus at the European Union (EU) level during the refugee crisis based on the discursive polarization of the main governmental and institutional actors involved in decision-making. Drawing on de Wilde's representative claims analysis, the goal is to trace competing claims of representation made on 'Europe's behalf' by multiple actors claiming to defend EU values or the interests of citizens. The analysis covers Politico Europe articles published during 2015-16, capturing the height of the crisis. The findings illustrate the self-understandings of actors on a humanitarian-communitarian axis that became intertwined with concerns for internal EU solidarity and the survival of the Schengen Area. The analysis contributes to the literature on EU politicization and discursive framing during the refugee crisis, showing how the actors involved in EU decision-making had very different conceptions of what was at stake in the episode.}, language = {en} } @article{FreudlspergerJachtenfuchs, author = {Freudlsperger, Christian and Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Wendepunkt Corona-Krise? Deutsche Pr{\"a}ferenzen zur europ{\"a}ischen Integration staatlicher Kerngewalten seit Maastricht}, series = {integration}, volume = {44}, journal = {integration}, number = {2}, doi = {10.5771/0720-5120-2021-2-81}, pages = {81 -- 96}, abstract = {Did the Covid-19 crisis prompt a turn in German EU policy? Investigating the long-term development of German preferences on the European integration of core state powers, we find striking continuity. German governments persistently seek to minimise their costs from and maximise their control over integration. Consequently, they back supranational capacity-building primarily as a last resort in existential systemic crises. The Corona recovery fund, which is temporary and placed under intergovernmental control, is in line with this general long-term preference and does little to alleviate the structural flaws of the Euro area.}, language = {de} } @article{GenschelJachtenfuchs, author = {Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Postfunctionalism reversed: solidarity and rebordering during the COVID-19 pandemic}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {28}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {3}, issn = {Print ISSN: 1350-1763, Online ISSN: 1466-4429}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2021.1881588}, pages = {350 -- 369}, abstract = {Postfunctionalism posits a tradeoff between the functional scale of governance and the territorial scope of community: functional scale is large and transnational for efficiency reasons; community is small-scale and (sub-)national for reasons of social trust and collective identification. COVID-19 has turned this tradeoff upside down: it has shrunk functional scale to the (sub-)national level in the name of security, while lifting expectations of community to the grand transnational scale in the name of solidarity. This reversal of scales has resulted in a rapid rebordering of the Single Market and the Schengen area on the one hand, and a significant debordering of fiscal risk and burden sharing on the other. We reconstruct the evolution of this double-movement from January to August 2020, contrast it to historical trends in the scale-community tradeoff of European integration, and discuss implications for postfunctionalist theory.}, language = {en} } @article{GenschelJachtenfuchsMigliorati, author = {Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Migliorati, Marta}, title = {Differentiated integration as symbolic politics? Constitutional differentiation and policy reintegration in core state powers}, series = {European Union Politics}, journal = {European Union Politics}, doi = {10.1177/14651165221128291}, abstract = {What are the policy consequences of constitutional differentiation in core state powers? We argue that the most important consequence is not necessarily the exclusion of the constitutional outs from the policies of the ins, but their reintegration by different means. The outs often have strong functional and political incentives to re-join the policies they opted out from, and the ins have good reasons to help them back in. We develop a theoretical framework that derives the incentives for reintegration from the costs of a policy exclusion. We use a novel dataset of reintegration opportunities to map trends and patterns of reintegration across policy fields and member states. We analyze selected cases of reintegration to probe the plausibility of our theoretical argument.}, language = {en} } @article{vandenBrink, author = {van den Brink, Martijn}, title = {When can religious employers discriminate? The scope of the religious ethos exemption in EU law}, series = {European Law Open}, volume = {1}, journal = {European Law Open}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1017/elo.2022.1}, pages = {89 -- 112}, abstract = {When are religious employers exempt from the prohibition of discrimination (i.e., when can they discriminate against non-adherents)? The European Union (EU) Equality Framework Directive exempts religious employers from the prohibition of religious discrimination, but the scope of the religious ethos exemption is disputed and its interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Egenberger and IR v JQ has been criticised for being ultra vires and for disrespecting the constitutional identities of the EU Member States. This article clarifies the religious ethos exemption, by examining the underlying legal and normative issues that determine its scope. It shows that the scope of the exemption depends not just on the Framework Directive but also on the relationship between EU law and national constitutional law and that between EU law and international law. Thus, this article not only provides clarity regarding the religious ethos exemption, but also uses these judgements as an opportunity to revisit these related constitutional issues, and in particular the role of the CJEU and EU legislature in defining the place of national constitutional identity in EU law.}, language = {en} } @article{FreudlspergerMaricutAkbikMigliorati, author = {Freudlsperger, Christian and Maricut-Akbik, Adina and Migliorati, Marta}, title = {Opening Pandora's Box? Joint Sovereignty and the Rise of EU Agencies with Operational Tasks}, series = {Comparitive Political Studies}, volume = {55}, journal = {Comparitive Political Studies}, number = {12}, doi = {10.1177/00104140211066223}, pages = {1983 -- 2014}, abstract = {This article problematises the proliferation of European Union (EU) agencies with operational tasks as a new phenomenon capturing the exercise of joint sovereignty in European integration. While joint decision-making has been a feature of EU politics for decades, joint sovereignty is a broader category that additionally involves the creation of EU bodies able to intervene 'on the ground' alongside national public actors. We argue that the choice for joint sovereignty opens a Pandora's box of implementation deficiencies which undermine the ability of both national and supranational actors to conduct operational activities effectively. We subsequently identify two frequent dysfunctions in policy implementation and connect them to ambiguity and conflict at the decision-making stage. Empirically, we illustrate the systemic link between decision-making and implementation problems in the functioning of two agencies with operational tasks active in the fields of border management (Frontex) and police cooperation (Europol).}, language = {en} } @article{Obendiek, author = {Obendiek, Anke S.}, title = {What Are We Actually Talking About? Conceptualizing Data as a Governable Object in Overlapping Jurisdictions}, series = {International Studies Quarterly}, volume = {66}, journal = {International Studies Quarterly}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1093/isq/sqab080}, abstract = {Data form an increasingly essential element of contemporary politics, as both public and private actors extend claims of their legitimate control in diverse areas including health, security, and trade. This paper investigates data governance as a site of fundamental normative and political ordering processes that unfold in light of ever-increasing inter- and transnational linkages. Drawing on the concept of jurisdictional conflicts, the paper traces the evolution of data governance in three cases of transatlantic conflicts as diverging definitional claims over data. The paper argues that these conflicts reveal varying conceptualizations of data linked to four distinct visions of the social world. First, a conceptualization of data as an individual rights issue links human rights with the promotion of sovereignty to a vision of data governance as local liberalism. Second, proponents of a security partnership promote global security cooperation based on the conceptualization of data as a neutral instrument. Third, a conceptualization of data as an economic resource is linked to a vision of the digital economy that endorses progress and innovation with limited regulation. Fourth, a conceptualization of data as a collective resource links the values of universal rights and global rules to a vision of global protection.}, language = {en} } @article{GenschelJachtenfuchs, author = {Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {The security state in Europe: regulatory or positive?}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2023.2174580}, pages = {1447 -- 1457}, abstract = {We challenge Kruck and Weiss' argument about the regulatory security state on two counts. First, we contest the notion that the regulatory state is a viable alternative to the positive security state. While regulation and epistemic authority are increasingly important means of security provision, they remain critically dependent power resources and political authority that only the positive state provides. The regulatory security state is premised on the positive state and unviable without it. Second, the rise of the regulatory security state over the past three decades reflects highly specific historical conditions rather than a general trend. These conditions include unusually low geopolitical tensions in Europe and the strong regulatory bias of EU integration. Concepts matter: The wider the notion of security, the more relevant the regulatory security state becomes. It is an important reality but the war in Ukraine reminds us of the enduring centrality of the positive state.}, language = {en} } @article{vandenBrink, author = {van den Brink, Martijn}, title = {Revising Citizenship within the European Union: Is a Genuine Link Requirement the Way Forward?}, series = {German Law Journal}, volume = {23}, journal = {German Law Journal}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1017/glj.2022.4}, pages = {79 -- 96}, abstract = {EU institutions have argued on several occasions that national and EU citizenship should not be awarded without any genuine link with the Member State concerned. Some scholars have adopted the same position, justifying their position referring to the genuine link requirement established by the International Court of Justice in Nottebohm. This has prompted criticism from legal scholars, who point out that Nottebohm was wrong as a matter of international law and moral principle. This paper shows that supporters and critics have failed to recognise that they have been talking with different conceptions of the genuine link requirement in mind. The question of whether to apply a genuine link requirement for the recognition of nationality is altogether different from the question of whether to apply a genuine link requirement for the acquisition of nationality. Nottebohm concerns the first; the arguments of EU institutions the second. The argument of EU institutions cannot therefore be dismissed by dismissing Nottebohm. I subsequently explore the normative arguments for predicating the boundaries of national membership on a genuine link requirement. There are weighty moral reasons for member states to condition the acquisition of national and EU citizenship on the presence of a genuine link. Finally, moving from the normative to the practical, I argue that such a requirement would have far-reaching consequences (targeting not just investor citizenship schemes) and cannot be enforced as a requirement under EU law.}, language = {en} } @article{MaricutAkbik, author = {Maricut-Akbik, Adina}, title = {EU politicization beyond the Euro crisis: immigration crises and the politicization of free movement of people}, series = {Comparative European Politics}, volume = {17}, journal = {Comparative European Politics}, issn = {1472-4790 (print), 1740-388X (electronic)}, doi = {10.1057/s41295-018-0113-6}, pages = {380 -- 396}, abstract = {This article explores the applicability of democratic functionalism as a theoretical framework explaining mechanisms of European Union (EU) politicization during immigration crises. Since most existing studies on the politicization of EU crisis situations focus on the Euro crisis, it is unclear if and how the politicization of EU immigration crises differs. Drawing on a 2011 crisis with legislative implications for the free movement of people in the Schengen Area, the article illustrates that immigration crises are politicized along exclusionary identities rather than along pro-/anti-European lines—as expected by democratic functionalism. Moreover, unlike in the Euro crisis, the 2011 case illustrates how the media can be instrumentalized by governments during immigration crises, with little political mobilization from the public. This case is relevant given the widespread politicization of the 2015 refugee crisis, which conversely attracted close media attention and caused serious public concern. As it stands, democratic functionalism is shown to lack a conceptualization of how much and for how long an issue needs to be contested in the European public sphere for the mechanisms of EU politicization described by the theory to hold.}, language = {en} } @article{MaricutPuetter, author = {Maricut, Adina and Puetter, Uwe}, title = {Deciding on the European Semester: the European Council, the Council and the enduring asymmetry between economic and social policy issues}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {25}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {2}, issn = {Print: 1350-1763, Online: 1466-4429}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2017.1363271}, pages = {193 -- 211}, abstract = {This contribution investigates the asymmetrical relationship between economic and social aspects under the European Semester by looking at the roles of the European Council and the Council between 2010 and 2016. Drawing on the theories of deliberative and new intergovernmentalism, this asymmetry is associated with an uneven evolution of the co-ordination infrastructure, notably the varying degree to which key policy issues are subject to informal policy dialogue. Not only are finance ministers better placed to conduct policy dialogue, they also control the European Semester policy priorities more effectively than their colleagues in the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO). Finance ministers also are more closely linked to discussions at the highest political level, the European Council. Social affairs committees and the Commission managed to gain a greater role at the expert level and to integrate more social issues into policy recommendations. Yet, these successes are not matched by higher level political endorsement.}, language = {en} } @article{MaricutAkbik, author = {Maricut-Akbik, Adina}, title = {The dynamics of institutional behaviour in EU justice and home affairs: roles, representative claims, and varying policy positions}, series = {Journal of European Integration}, volume = {40}, journal = {Journal of European Integration}, number = {2}, issn = {Print: 0703-6337 Online: 1477-2280}, doi = {10.1080/07036337.2017.1415334}, pages = {161 -- 176}, abstract = {This article investigates the reasons behind varying institutional positions in the European Union's (EU) area of justice and home affairs (JHA). It argues that such instances of institutional behaviour cannot be fully understood without examining how each institution seeks to legitimize its role in the EU political system. A novel theoretical framework on institutional behaviour is advanced, connecting individual policy positions and governance choices to (1) institutional roles developed within different types of organizational structure, and (2) the representative claims made by officials involved in decision-making. The framework draws on insights from organizational theory regarding institutional role expectations and a constructivist approach to representation borrowed from the work of Michael Saward. Using three cases of JHA legislation from the post-Lisbon period, it is shown that the framework can explain varying patterns of institutional behaviour by exploring lines of justification present in the institutional discourse.}, language = {en} } @article{vandenBrink, author = {van den Brink, Martijn}, title = {A typology of reverse discrimination in EU citizenship law}, series = {European Law Open}, volume = {2}, journal = {European Law Open}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1017/elo.2022.54}, pages = {57 -- 78}, abstract = {In this Article, Martijn van den Brink sheds new light on one of the longest-running debates in the European Union (EU) citizenship literature: the concept of 'reverse discrimination' and the question of whether it is justified. Reverse discrimination has divided EU lawyers into roughly two distinct groups. One group believes that it constitutes an unjustified violation of the principle of equality; a second that it is inevitable in a Union governed by the constitutional principle of divided powers. This Article questions this by offering a typology of reverse discrimination. While most scholars assume that reverse discrimination is a singular phenomenon that demands a singular response, this Article shows that it is a variegated phenomenon that demands a variegated response. It distinguishes three types of reverse discrimination and explains that the proper response depends on the type we are considering. Type I is caused by the application of the principle of mutual recognition; Type II by an interaction between domestic federalism and internal discrimination; and Type III by the CJEU's confusion over the aim of the right to free movement and residence. Through this typology, the Article shows that reverse discrimination is never a corollary of the principle of divided powers, nor is it always incompatible with the principle of equality. Finally, the Article shows that to the extent that reverse discrimination violates the principle of equality, the solution is not to equalise rights upwards but downwards to the lower (national or regional) level of government. This shows that the principle of equality and the principle of divided powers need not collide.}, language = {en} } @article{vandenBrink, author = {van den Brink, Martijn}, title = {The Protected Grounds of Religion and Belief: Lessons for EU Non-Discrimination Law}, series = {German Law Journal}, volume = {24}, journal = {German Law Journal}, number = {5}, doi = {10.1017/glj.2023.54}, pages = {855 -- 880}, abstract = {The article draws lessons for EU non-discrimination law from the protected grounds of religion and belief through a discussion of the CJEU's headscarf judgments. The article has two ambitions. First, the judgments are used to draw broader lessons for EU non-discrimination law, in relation to the distinction between and the justification of direct and indirect discrimination, as well as the purpose of protecting against (religious) discrimination. Second, these lessons are used to analyze the headscarf judgments and the criticism directed at them. While there is widespread agreement that the CJEU erred in these judgments, there is little agreement as to what mistakes were made. Through a discussion of these judgments, the article clarifies the difference between direct and indirect discrimination and the justification of both forms of discrimination. It is argued that the headscarf cases correctly distinguished between direct and indirect discrimination, and that the problem lies in the justificatory burden for indirect discriminatory measures, which was set too low by the CJEU.}, language = {en} } @article{vandenBrink, author = {van den Brink, Martijn}, title = {Off Track, Again? EU Citizenship and the Right to Social Assistance}, series = {Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law}, volume = {11}, journal = {Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law}, editor = {Szab{\´o}, Marcel and Gyeney, Laura and L{\´a}ncos, Petra Lea}, isbn = {978-90-4730-177-6}, issn = {2666-2701}, doi = {10.5553/HYIEL/266627012023011001003}, pages = {18 -- 36}, abstract = {The right of EU citizens to equal treatment with nationals of the host Member State in respect of social assistance has been subject to significant changes on several occasions between the Treaty of Maastricht and now. The CJEU has struggled to establish consistent standards prescribing when economically inactive citizens can claim social protection, and in 2014 its tendency to construe this right broadly suddenly came to an end. It backtracked on one-and-a-half decades of case law by ruling that citizens could lay no claim to social assistance unless the respective conditions set out in secondary legislation were met. This article discusses the relevant law and its evolution over the past decades for a twofold aim. (i) First, to clarify in an accessible manner in what respects the law has changed from 1993 to the present. (ii) Second, to articulate a framework that allows us to evaluate the CJEU judgments rendered during this period. This framework departs from established ways of thinking about this evaluative question. Much of the EU citizenship literature evaluates the case law by the outcome it brings about. I will argue, instead, that this evaluation is a matter of comparative institutional choice. Such a comparative institutional assessment shows that disputes over the right of EU citizens to claim social assistance should be decided in line with what the EU legislature intended. It follows that the application of a principle of judicial deference to legislation in the second period of social assistance case law from 2014 onwards was justified.}, language = {en} } @article{Bobzien, author = {Bobzien, Licia}, title = {Income Inequality and Political Trust: Do Fairness Perceptions Matter?}, series = {Social Indicators Research}, journal = {Social Indicators Research}, doi = {10.1007/s11205-023-03168-9}, abstract = {Political trust—in terms of trust in political institutions—is an important precondition for the functioning and stability of democracy. One widely studied determinant of political trust is income inequality. While the empirical finding that societies with lower levels of income inequality have higher levels of trust is well established, the exact ways in which income inequality affects political trust remain unclear. Past research has shown that individuals oftentimes have biased perceptions of inequality. Considering potentially biased inequality perceptions, Licia Bobzien argues that individuals compare their perceptions of inequality to their preference for inequality. If they identify a gap between what they perceive and what they prefer (= fairness gap), they consider their attitudes towards inequality unrepresented. This, in turn, reduces trust in political institutions. Using three waves of the ESS and the ISSP in a cross-country perspective, she finds that (1) perceiving a larger fairness gap is associated with lower levels of political trust; (2) the fairness gap mediates the link between actual inequality and political trust; and (3) disaggregating the fairness gap measure, political trust is more strongly linked to variation in inequality perceptions than to variation in inequality preferences. This indicates that inequality perceptions are an important factor shaping trust into political institutions.}, language = {en} } @article{KalleitnerBobzien, author = {Kalleitner, Fabian and Bobzien, Licia}, title = {Taxed fairly? How differences in perception shape attitudes towards progressive taxation}, series = {European Sociological Review}, journal = {European Sociological Review}, doi = {10.1093/esr/jcad060}, abstract = {Empirically, the poor are more likely to support increases in the level of tax progressivity than the rich. Such income-stratified tax preferences can result from differences in preferences of what should be taxed as argued by previous literature. However, it may also result from income-stratified perceptions of what is taxed. This paper argues that the rich perceive higher levels of tax progressivity than the poor and that tax perceptions affect individuals' support for progressive taxation. Using data from an Austrian survey experiment, we test this argument in three steps: First, in line with past research, we show that individuals' income positions are connected to individuals' tax preferences as a self-interest rationale would predict. However, second, we show that this variation is mainly driven by income-stratified tax perceptions. Third, randomly informing a subset of the sample about actual tax rates, we find that changing tax perceptions causally affects support for redistributive taxation among those who initially overestimated the level of tax progressivity. Our results indicate that tax perceptions are relevant for forming tax preferences and suggest that individuals are more polarized in their perceptions of who pays how much taxes than in their support for who should pay how much tax.}, language = {en} } @article{BoisDawson, author = {Bois, Julien and Dawson, Mark}, title = {Towards a legally plausible theory of judicialization in the European Union}, series = {Journal of European Integration}, volume = {45}, journal = {Journal of European Integration}, number = {5}, doi = {10.1080/07036337.2023.2190104}, pages = {823 -- 842}, abstract = {This article examines the development of judicialization literature in the EU arguing that - in spite of the obvious advantages of interdisciplinary collaboration - scholarship on judicialization in law and political science is drafting apart in the 21st Century. While early political science research on the European Courts found theoretical inspiration in legal research, law and political science have increasingly diverging epistemological and methodological starting points. As the article argues, using prominent papers, this results in both disciplines producing partial accounts of judicial change with limited external validity. The article concludes by offering routes to improving the inter-disciplinary foundations of judicialization research.}, language = {en} } @article{vandenBrinkDawsonZglinski, author = {van den Brink, Martijn and Dawson, Mark and Zglinski, Jan}, title = {Revisiting the asymmetry thesis: negative and positive integration in the EU}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2023.2296940}, abstract = {The 'asymmetry thesis', articulated by Fritz Scharpf, holds that EU governance is characterised by an asymmetry between positive and negative integration. The EU has well-developed capacities for negative integration but only limited capacities for positive integration. The present paper challenges the orthodoxy that this thesis has become in EU law and political science scholarship. It argues that the asymmetry thesis no longer accurately depicts European integration, revisiting its key legal and institutional assumptions. Taking the internal market as the most likely case to test the thesis, we show that negative integration has become weaker, positive integration has gained in strength, and both developments have had an impact on the substance of EU law and policymaking, which is promoting non-economic concerns and market-correcting policies to a greater extent than it used to. These shifts, so we contend, could be even more pronounced in other areas of European integration.}, language = {en} } @article{FlonkJachtenfuchsObendiek, author = {Flonk, Dani{\"e}lle and Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Obendiek, Anke}, title = {Controlling internet content in the EU: towards digital sovereignty}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {31}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {8}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2024.2309179}, pages = {2316 -- 2342}, abstract = {We analyse the rhetoric and reality of EU digital sovereignty by looking at content control. The control of online content is central to sovereignty because it relates to fundamental freedoms and democratic competition. Our main data source is the unique International Organizations in Global Internet Governance (IO-GIG) dataset which contains internet policy output documents across international institutions and issue areas between 1995 and 2021. By assessing policy output, we show structural trends in content control output in volume, bindingness, and orientation. By analysing policy discourse, we show the evolution of frames on content control over time. We find evidence for a comprehensive but still ongoing trend towards digital sovereignty in policy output and a shift from prioritising free access to the public order in discourse.}, language = {en} } @article{GenschelJachtenfuchsMigliorati, author = {Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Migliorati, Marta}, title = {Nur Symbolpolitik? Differenzierung und Reintegration staatlicher Kerngewalten}, series = {integration}, volume = {46}, journal = {integration}, number = {2}, doi = {10.5771/0720-5120-2023-2-146}, pages = {146 -- 161}, abstract = {Constitutional differentiation is often assumed to match perfectly with reality. We argue, however, that this is often not the case in core state powers. Constitutional differentiation often does not lead to the exclusion of the non-integrated member states ("outs") from the policies of the integrated member states ("ins") but to their reintegration by different means. We present a cost-benefit-model which argues that both "outs" and "ins" often have strong functional and political incentives to seek reintegration after an earlier decision for differentiation because the costs of exclusion are too high. We use a novel dataset of reintegration opportunities to map trends and patterns of reintegration across policy fields, reintegration instruments and member states in core state powers. We conclude by arguing that reintegration is a frequent but fragile phenomenon through which "ins" and "outs" cope with the costs of exclusion.}, language = {de} } @article{Patrin, author = {Patrin, Maria}, title = {Democratic standards in external differentiation: the area of freedom, security and justice}, series = {West European Politics}, volume = {48}, journal = {West European Politics}, number = {5}, publisher = {Informa UK Limited}, doi = {10.1080/01402382.2025.2477398}, pages = {1002 -- 1028}, abstract = {The article investigates standards of democracy and accountability in external differentiated integration. It focuses on the area of freedom security and justice as a highly differentiated EU policy domain that combines patterns of internal and external differentiation. Two case studies in the field of Schengen and police cooperation illustrate how differentiated policies can affect participating third countries in democratic terms. The analysis shows that although countries associated to EU policies maintain their full sovereignty and jurisdiction, the pressure to comply is high and the threat of exclusion can lead to incongruence in both participation in decision making and accountability. Furthermore, the overlap between internal and external differentiation results in a frayed participation landscape that obfuscates accountability processes and can create legal uncertainty.}, language = {en} } @article{RehBressanelliKoop, author = {Reh, Christine and Bressanelli, Edoardo and Koop, Christel}, title = {Responsive withdrawal? The politics of EU agenda-setting}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {27}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2020.1712453}, pages = {419 -- 438}, abstract = {This contribution asks whether and why the newly political environment of EU law-making impacts on the European Commission's choice (not) to announce the withdrawal of legislative proposals. We argue that the Commission uses 'responsive withdrawal' in response to bottom-up pressure, so as to signal self-restraint or policy-determination to different audiences. Bottom-up pressures are driven by (1) the national contestation of 'Europe'; (2) visible controversy about optimal (crisis) governance; and (3) the domestic salience of EU legislation. Our hypotheses are tested on a new dataset of all codecision files concluded, withdrawn, rejected or ongoing between 2006 and 2018. We show that the Commission reacts to bottom-up pressure by either politicising or depoliticising the EU's legislative agenda: 'withdrawal announcements' are more likely when Euroscepticism is high and when legislation touches core state powers, but less likely when legislation is domestically salient. We also demonstrate the continued importance of cyclical and technical reasons. Our analysis complements extant explanations of withdrawal as the upshot of functional factors or of uncertainty, and contributes to the nascent debate about whether, why and how supranational actors respond when the systems in which they operate - and the policies they produce - come under attack.}, language = {en} } @article{BreaughHammerschmidStockreiter, author = {Breaugh, Jessica and Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Stockreiter, Simona}, title = {The prevalence of public values in public private partnerships for government digitalisation: A systematic review of the literature}, series = {Government Information Quarterly}, volume = {42}, journal = {Government Information Quarterly}, number = {3}, publisher = {Elsevier BV}, doi = {10.1016/j.giq.2025.102048}, abstract = {This study presents a systematic literature review of 74 articles examining public-private partnerships (PPPs) in digitalisation projects, analysing how public values are represented in this literature. It contributes to the literature by systematically mapping how public values are discussed in PPP-driven digitalisation, distinguishing between their role as internal governance mechanisms (internal public value enablers) and their broader societal effects (external public value outcomes). It also identifies gaps in empirical research, particularly in understanding public value conflicts and trade-offs in PPPs. While public values such as efficiency, participation, and accountability are the most frequently cited in the literature, other values such as accessibility, trust and proportionality also emerged. Despite the collaborative nature of PPPs, our review uncovers conflicts between public and private sector motives, emphasizing the need for public sector actors to actively safeguard public values. The study thus contributes to a broader understanding of public values representation in the context of digitalisation projects.}, language = {en} } @article{Hansum, author = {Hansum, Romy}, title = {Continuity amid change: Explaining budgetary choices in the national implementation of EU cohesion policy funds}, series = {European Union Politics}, journal = {European Union Politics}, doi = {10.1177/14651165251365553}, abstract = {At first glance, the implementation of EU funds should be fluctuating with economic or political demands. However, this quantitative analysis shows that the national implementation is instead characterised by policy continuity. National governments largely adhere to the same budgetary choices as in previous periods when implementing cohesion policy funds, independent of changing political and economic circumstances at the national level. Additionally, countries with a longer implementation experience show more policy continuity. These findings suggest that self-reinforcing dynamics develop not only for domestic funds but also in the EU multi-level governance context. In addition to policy continuity, EU-wide trends were found to matter in the broad national programmatic orientation. When policy continuity prevails, the resulting rigidity can threaten the effectiveness and responsiveness of EU funds.}, language = {en} } @article{Knudsen, author = {Knudsen, Edward L.}, title = {A falling star? Origins of declining state capacity and democratic accountability in the United States}, series = {Global Policy}, volume = {14}, journal = {Global Policy}, number = {S4}, publisher = {Wiley}, issn = {1758-5880}, doi = {10.1111/1758-5899.13282}, pages = {47 -- 57}, abstract = {AbstractThe United States—often hailed as the 'oldest democracy in the world' and the 'leader of the free world'—has fallen on hard times. In addition to recent headline-grabbing political events that have highlighted its political dysfunction, data from the 2022 Berggruen Governance Index (BGI) reveal that overall state capacity and democratic accountability have been declining for years. Although public goods provision has remained on a steady course, the US still trails much of the developed world. We find this struggling performance is largely the result of neglecting three types of infrastructure: civic, physical and social. Specifically, we argue that the crisis became particularly pronounced due to an insufficient response to the 2008 global financial crisis. Although some recent political achievements could slow the decline, more drastic action will be required to reverse these troubling trends.}, language = {en} } @article{Knudsen, author = {Knudsen, Edward L.}, title = {Escape from the 'lost decades?' Governance challenges in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela}, series = {Global Policy}, volume = {14}, journal = {Global Policy}, number = {S4}, publisher = {Wiley}, issn = {1758-5880}, doi = {10.1111/1758-5899.13279}, pages = {113 -- 123}, abstract = {Much of Latin America has experienced a renewed 'lost decade', failing to substantially expand quality of life since the late 2000s. While the outcomes of governance performance across the largest countries - including Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina - have discrete causes, common themes like internal conflict, corruption, and overreliance on natural resources plague the entire region. Put more generally, the inability to turn democratic accountability into a state mechanism able to deliver economic growth and public goods in a sustainable manner is a liability affecting all five countries. To explore the difficulties that the large Latin American countries have faced in the twenty-first century, this article examines results from the 2022 Berggruen Governance Index, and then presents three key issues facing the region: insufficient state capacity, flirtations with authoritarianism, and economic inequality and inflation. While the challenges remain substantial, increased regional integration may offer one way out of the predicament.}, language = {en} } @article{Knudsen, author = {Knudsen, Edward L.}, title = {Stable or stagnant? Political economy and governance in the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Germany since 2000}, series = {Global Policy}, volume = {14}, journal = {Global Policy}, number = {S4}, publisher = {Wiley}, issn = {1758-5880}, doi = {10.1111/1758-5899.13271}, pages = {90 -- 103}, abstract = {At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the large democracies of Western Europe experienced some of the most prosperous and peaceful decades in human history. Specifically, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Germany experienced high and stable quality of life, democratic accountability and state capacity between 2000 and 2019, according to the 2022 Berggruen Governance Index. While all four of these countries are among the top performers in the Index, substantial problems lurk beneath the surface. Notably, each failed to capitalise on the low interest rate environment in the decade following the global financial crisis of 2007-2009—albeit in different ways and for different reasons in each country. In particular, low investment in infrastructure and key technologies, the persistence of stubborn regional inequalities, and resulting sluggish GDP growth have prevented the 'Big Four' in Western Europe from improving further and future-proofing their existing gains.}, language = {en} } @article{Koranyi, author = {Koranyi, Kinga}, title = {Power of the weak? Framing strategies in fiscal redistribution negotiations}, series = {Regional \& Federal Studies}, journal = {Regional \& Federal Studies}, doi = {10.1080/13597566.2023.2295407}, abstract = {In fiscal redistribution negotiations, fiscally weaker sub-units aim to secure more funding but are disempowered by their dependency and lack of bargaining chips. What kind of negotiation strategies do fiscally weak actors rely on to maximize their bargaining positions in redistributive negotiations? The article puts forward a novel strategy of discursive framing whereby relatively powerless actors can reach successful agreements. Two strategies of framing, communitarian and coercive, are observed inductively through a comparative case study analysis of two instances of sub-federal redistribution negotiations in Canada. The findings reveal that 'more is not always better': more publicity and aggression can backfire, while communitarian strategies grounded in normative argumentation can prove effective despite their non-confrontational nature. Even a mixed communitarian-coercive strategy can prove effective given that sub-units remain consistent with their initial objectives and apply pressure incrementally. The lessons learned from these Canadian cases have broader implications for studying the dynamics of redistributive negotiations globally.}, language = {en} } @article{Hansum, author = {Hansum, Romy}, title = {The Role of Electoral Interests in the National Distribution of EU Covid-19 Funds}, series = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, journal = {JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies}, publisher = {Wiley}, issn = {0021-9886}, doi = {10.1111/jcms.13711}, abstract = {Expectations are high regarding the impact of the extensive Covid-19 crisis support 'Next Generation EU'. Mixed experiences from established EU distributive policies indicate, though, that ultimate policy outcomes largely depend on national implementation decisions. This article scrutinises vote-buying strategies according to which domestic governments exploit the largely autonomous national distribution of EU funds to target certain constituencies. To study national strategies, the analysis takes advantage of the extraordinary leeway given to domestic governments in distributing REACT-EU funds, part of Next Generation EU. The encompassing quantitative analysis covers a large sample of member states and committed funds. The regression results provide no support that national governments distribute REACT-EU funds to politically opportune regions. In a departure from most previous analyses focusing on specific member states, these findings suggest that vote buying is not the dominant strategy in the national implementation of all EU funds.}, language = {en} } @article{AkbikMigliorati, author = {Akbik, Adina and Migliorati, Marta}, title = {Understanding oversight through parliamentary questions: The European Parliament in the Economic and Monetary Union}, series = {European Union Politics}, volume = {25}, journal = {European Union Politics}, number = {4}, publisher = {SAGE Publications}, issn = {1465-1165}, doi = {10.1177/14651165241268274}, pages = {675 -- 697}, abstract = {Although parliamentary questions are an essential tool of legislative oversight, there is limited research on their variation in holding governments accountable. In this article, we analyse a new dataset of 1393 oral questions posed by Members of the European Parliament during the 8th parliamentary term. After distinguishing between questions asking for information, justification, or rectification of conduct, we explain their variation in connection to the formal oversight relationship between parliaments and scrutinised actors, and to the type of policy activity carried out by the latter. We find that Members of the European Parliament are more likely to address rectification questions and less likely to ask information questions the fewer legal controls they have. Moreover, information questions are more likely to occur in the oversight of policy formulation, while justification questions are prevalent in the oversight of policy execution. The findings flag the importance of structural factors in the practice of legislative oversight.}, language = {en} } @article{DawsonBobić, author = {Dawson, Mark and Bobić, Ana}, title = {Unpacking Legal Accountability: The Case of the European Central Bank}, series = {Politics and Governance}, volume = {13}, journal = {Politics and Governance}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.8907}, abstract = {Although the term "legal accountability" increasingly appears in scholarly discourse surrounding the European Central Bank (ECB), it is under-theorised. This article explores three different dimensions of legal accountability, which are often confused. Accountability to law refers to accountability to legal rules and standards. Accountability through law refers to achieving routes of administrative and political accountability through legal institutions. Accountability of law implies the accountability of legal institutions themselves to the wider public (and other courts) for their decisions. We argue that these dimensions are deeply connected in the sense that either improvements or failures along one dimension are easily carried to the others. We demonstrate the argument by applying our concept of legal accountability to ECB activity, comparing judicial review in the context of monetary policy with the Single Supervisory Mechanism. These cases suggest a possible vicious rather than virtuous circle of legal accountability, i.e., a tendency for either unclear legal standards or lack of accountability of courts themselves to undermine accountability for ECB activity as a whole.}, language = {en} } @article{Dawson, author = {Dawson, Mark}, title = {The Changing Substance of European Law}, series = {European Constitutional Law Review}, volume = {20}, journal = {European Constitutional Law Review}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1017/S1574019624000233}, pages = {451 -- 481}, abstract = {Intrinsic relation between form and substance in law and between the institutional law of the EU and its substantive goals - idea and criteria for a 'substantive core' to the legal order - the internal market as early EU law's substantive core - the EU's changing policy substance and the subsequent 'de-coring' of the legal order - the consequences of de-coring and its impact on EU law's relevance and legitimacy - early attempts to reconcile EU law with the changing substance of EU policy.}, language = {en} } @article{Hansum, author = {Hansum, Romy}, title = {'Why organizations leave money on the table: explaining non-demand for EU funds'}, series = {Regional \& Federal Studies}, journal = {Regional \& Federal Studies}, issn = {1359-7566}, doi = {10.1080/13597566.2025.2485052}, pages = {1 -- 27}, abstract = {The effectiveness of EU funds depends on their full and proper absorption, yet even regions with high administrative capacities face difficulties in the use of funds. This calls for more attention to a puzzling aspect: numerous potentially eligible organizations do not apply for EU funds. Unlike most previous studies, this analysis examines non-demand and a region with high administrative capacities. The first broad empirically grounded analytical framework of non-demand for EU cohesion funds is developed based on in-depth interviews with actual and potential beneficiaries and experts. It shows the main drivers for non-demand: unawareness of the offer, high administrative burden, and low perceived need for additional funding. Moreover, organization type and size are important moderators. Non-demand also causes adjustments in the supply of funds. These findings suggest that future EU implementation research should expand its focus to examine (non-)demand, as well as its dynamic interplay with the administration.}, language = {en} } @article{HasselSieker, author = {Hassel, Anke and Sieker, Felix}, title = {The platform effect: How Amazon changed work in logistics in Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom}, series = {European Journal of Industrial Relations}, volume = {28}, journal = {European Journal of Industrial Relations}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1177/09596801221082456}, pages = {363 -- 382}, abstract = {While the effects of the platform economy on work are mainly studied through the lens of gig or cloud workers, many more employees are likely to be affected in non-platform firms or sectors. We discuss the mechanisms of platform economy's impact on the employment relationships and indirect effect on employment trends. Platform firms enter the service economy with business models that put existing service providers under pressure and advance a platform model of employment relationship. However, their transformative force is limited by three factors: employment regulations, access to welfare provisions and the employment relations at legacy firms. We examine the case of Amazon logistics in the US, Germany and the UK and find that the employment contract, as a legal institution, prevents the dissemination of independent contracting as the preferred employment model. Moreover, the welfare state has a paradoxical effect on platform work: universal welfare and liberal employment law facilitate the rise of precarious work.}, language = {en} }