Thursday Friday Saturday
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
CES Virtual 27Th International Conference of Europeanists Europe's Past, Present, and Future: Utopias and Dystopias All Sessio
CES Virtual 27th International Conference of Europeanists Europe’s Past, Present, and Future: Utopias and Dystopias All sessions are listed in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). This Revised Preliminary Program is subject to change. We have tried to accommodate all of the submitted rescheduling requests. The Final Conference Program will be available on May 25, 2021. Please contact [email protected] about program-related updates by May 7, 2021. April 27, 2021 Pre-Conference and Conference Side Events MONDAY, JUNE 14 Territorial Politics and Federalism Research Network Business Meeting 6/14/2021 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM Business Meeting Chair: Willem Maas - York University TUESDAY, JUNE 15 Crises of Democracy 6/15/2021 10:00 AM to 11:30 PM Keynote Sponsored by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Chair: Nicole Shea – Director, Council for European Studies Speakers: Eileen Gillooly - Executive Director, Heyman Center for the Humanities, Columbia University Jane Ohlmeyer - Professor of History at Trinity College and Chair of the Irish Research Council European Integration and Political Economy Research Network Speed Mentoring Event 6/15/2021 10:30 AM to 2:30 PM Networking Event Chair: Dermot Hodson - Birkbeck, University of London WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16 How to Pitch to Publishers 6/16/2021 10:00 AM to 11:30 PM Speakers: Andrew Kinney - General Editor, Harvard University Press Jaya Aninda Chatterjee - Editor for World History, Geopolitics, and International Relations, Yale University Press 2 Mary Al-Sayed - Editor for Anthropology and History (World history; -
Alberta M Sbragia
Alberta M. Sbragia University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15260 PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA Vice Provost for Graduate Studies, 2010-present Inaugural Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg University Chair, 2006-2010 Jean Monnet Chair ad personam, 2005-present UCIS Research Professor Director, European Union Center of Excellence European Studies Center, 1984-2010 Professor, Department of Political Science, 1974-present Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, Cambridge, MA Visiting Associate Professor, 1983-1984 EDUCATION Graduate University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1969-1974 MA 1971; PhD 1974 Fulbright Fellow, Italy, 1972-1973 Undergraduate Holy Names College, Oakland, CA, 1965-1967, 1968-1969 BA 1969 Université de Paris (Sorbonne), Paris, 1967-1968 PUBLICATIONS Books Under Contract: The Rise of Regions: The EU, NAFTA, and the Developing World (tentative title), CQ Press. Debt Wish: Entrepreneurial Cities, US Federalism, and Economic Development, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996. Nominated as one of the best books of 1996 APSA's Urban Politics Section 1996 Best Book Committee. Sections reprinted in Sbragia 2 Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr., ed., American Intergovernmental Relations: Foundations, Perspectives, and Issues, 3rd edition, Washington: CQ Press, 2000, pp. 217-228. Euro-Politics: Politics and Policymaking in the ‘New’ European Community, edited book, Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1992. Two chapters therein: “Introduction,” pp. 1-22. “Thinking about the European Future: The Uses of Comparison,” pp. 257-291 The Municipal Money Chase: The Politics of Local Government Finance, edited book, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983. Two chapters therein: “The 1970s: A Decade of Change in Local Government Finance,” pp. 9-35. -
Schmidt Vita 2019 Feb Short
February 2019 CURRICULUM VITAE Vivien Ann Schmidt Pardee School of Global Studies Boston University 154 Bay State Road, Boston MA 02215 Tel: (617) 358-0192/ Fax: 353 9290 Email: [email protected] Website: http://blogs.bu.edu/vschmidt EDUCATION: University of Chicago, Ph.D. in Political Science, l981 Institut d’Études Politiques, Paris, l973-l974 (Fulbright-Hays Fellowship) University of Chicago, M.A. in Political Science, l973 Bryn Mawr College, B.A. cum laude in Political Science, l971 PROFESSIONAL HISTORY: Boston University: Professor of International Relations (l998 to present) Jean Monnet Professor of European Integration (2001 to present) Professor of Political Science (2009 to present) Founding Director, Center for the Study of Europe (2011 through 2016) Director, Center for International Relations (2008 to 2012) University of Massachusetts Boston: Professor of Political Science and Management (l993-l998); Director, Center for Democracy and Development, and Senior Fellow, McCormack Institute (l994-1998). Director, European Studies Program (l993-l998) Associate Professor (l987 -1993); Assistant Professor (l981-l987); Instructor (l979-l981) Visiting Professorships and Affiliate Positions: Harvard University, Center for European Studies: Co-Chair, European Union Studies Group (2008 to present); Faculty Affiliate (l999 to present); Visiting Scholar (Sept. l992 to Feb.l993); Research Associate (l985) LUISS University, School of Government, Rome: Visiting Professor (2012 to present) Utrecht University—Institute for Open Societies Platform -
Circles and Hemispheres of Integration
Circles and Hemispheres of Integration The Development of a System of Graded European Union Membership Frank Schimmelfennig, ETH Zürich, September 2014 Abstract The study of integration has focused on organizational growth and on the “deepening” and “widening” of regional organizations. By contrast, this paper analyzes organizational differentiation. It conceives of differentiation as a process, in which states either refuse to be integrated or are being refused integration by the core member states but all parties find value in creating in-between grades of membership. A particularly fine-grained system of graded membership has developed in Europe. This paper describes its development and seeks to explain the positioning and movement of states in this system. I argue that the “refusers” and the “refused” are located in different “hemispheres” of integration that cut across the “circles” of membership, and in which membership status is driven by opposite or different factors. The states of the “hemisphere of bad governance” are refused further integration because the core members are concerned about efficiency losses, redistribution, and a dilution of the EU’s democratic identity. By contrast, the states of the “hemisphere of affordable nationalism” refuse further integration because they care strongly about national identity and sovereignty and are wealthy and well-governed enough to resist. A panel analysis of European countries since the early 1990s shows that membership status among the refused countries increases with wealth, democracy, -
UNU/CRIS E-Occasional Papers O-2003/5 Is There a Comparative
UNU/CRIS e-Occasional Papers O-2003/5 Is There a Comparative Perspective between the European Union and NAFTA? Alejandro Chanona* * Director of the Center Of European Studies, National University of Mexico, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences ([email protected]) Is There a Comparative Perspective between the European Union and NAFTA? Introduction In 1991, a Conference was held in London regarding the launching of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). A member of the audience asked the speaker if he considered whether there was any chance for the NAFTA to be like the European Community; the answer was negative. The NAFTA was seen since its beginning as a simple Free Trade Agreement, maybe similar to an EFTA, rather than as a potential community. Time has proven that the respectable scholar was wrong; however, we cannot blame him for thinking like that. On the contrary, it was pretty ambitious to consider that NAFTA could take a step beyond what a FTA involves, theoretically speaking. There are currently several expectations around NAFTA that clearly foresee something beyond a simple FTA. Moreover, there are several analytical studies of a comparative nature, with the EU as the standard of comparison, that raise doubt over the idea of a North American Community1. If we agree that the NAFTA is a region in the making and its objectives tend to be overtaken by the dynamics of the region, we are in business. North America has become a real region for security reasons, for economic advantages and for political interests. The point is whether the NAFTA represents a distinctive model or its evolution reveals common features with the European experience. -
2505 Academic Programme
Contents Welcome Welcome messages ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.2 Organizing committees ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.4 ECPR Standing Group on the EU .. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. p.5 The University of Trento ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. p.5 Academic program Schedule of activities …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.6 Jo urnal of Common Market Studies Keynote Lecture ………………………………………………………………….. p.7 Plenary Roundtable ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.7 Other events ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.8 List of Sections …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. p.9 List of Panels by Section ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. p.10 List of Panels by Session time ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. p.47 Practical information Location ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. p.48 Regist ration ……………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………. p.48 Floor plans …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.49 Technology …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.51 Where to eat ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.51 Further information ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.5 2 List of registered participants ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.53 1 Welcome Welcome messages Dear Participants, it is my pleasure to welcome you to the University of Trento on the occasion of the 8th Pan-European Conference on the EU organized by the ECPR Standing Group on the European -
With 126 Panels, Nearly 500 Researc
Welcome to the 14th Biennial Conference of the European Union Studies Association in Boston! With 126 panels, nearly 500 researchers and practitioners from over 250 institutions across the world are participating in panels, plenaries and roundtables, making this one of the largest EUSA Conferences. We have a diversity of topics and disciplines represented in the program, along with key plenary sessions, followed by evening receptions open to all participants. Among the highlights of the program is an evening plenary panel on Friday: Neoliberal Policies and their Alternatives, followed by a keynote lecture by Thomas Piketty, Inequality in the Europe- and What the EU Could Do About it. Immediately thereafter, there is a reception hosted by the Journal of Common Market Studies. Two other plenaries will focus on the Future of EU Federalism, and the Future of Transatlantic Relations, the latter featuring Baroness Catherine Ashton (former High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy). A panel and discussion Honoring Lifetime Achievement in European Studies Award Recipient James Caporaso, former Chair of EUSA, will take place on Saturday during the lunch time session. A presentation of EUSA Prize Winners will be held on Thursday Evening, where we will award the Ernst Haas Fellowship, Lifetime Achievement Award, Best Book, Best Dissertation and Best Paper Prizes. This will be followed by a EUSA Reception. There are also a number of interest group business meetings listed in the program that conference participants are welcome to attend. The European Union Studies Association is grateful for a generous conference grant from the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, and logistical assistance, financial sponsorship and organizational support from the Journal of Common Market Studies, College of Europe, Fulbright Commission, Northeastern University, and the University of Pittsburgh, which supports EUSA on its campus. -
"Democratic Deficit": Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union
JCMS 2002 Volume 40. Number 4. pp. 603–24 In Defence of the ‘Democratic Deficit’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union* ANDREW MORAVCSIK Harvard University Abstract Concern about the EU’s ‘democratic deficit’ is misplaced. Judged against existing advanced industrial democracies, rather than an ideal plebiscitary or parliamentary democracy, the EU is legitimate. Its institutions are tightly constrained by constitu- tional checks and balances: narrow mandates, fiscal limits, super-majoritarian and concurrent voting requirements and separation of powers. The EU's appearance of exceptional insulation reflects the subset of functions it performs – central banking, constitutional adjudication, civil prosecution, economic diplomacy and technical administration. These are matters of low electoral salience commonly delegated in national systems, for normatively justifiable reasons. On balance, the EU redresses rather than creates biases in political representation, deliberation and output. Introduction Is the European Union democratically legitimate? It is an appropriate mo- ment to pose this question. The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a stable institutional equilibrium – let us call it the ‘European Constitutional Settlement’ – that serves as a de facto constitution for Europe. The Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice failed to alter its structure significantly. Deliberations now underway, despite being turbo-charged with constitutional rhetoric, are unlikely to achieve much more. The most ambitious proposals still under se- rious -
Why European Union Member States Opt out of Integration
The Choice for Differentiated Europe: Why European Union Member States Opt out of Integration Thomas Winzen and Frank Schimmelfennig Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich, Switzerland1 Paper prepared for the 14th biennial conference of the European Union Studies Association, 5-7 March 2015, Boston, MA. Abstract Since the early 1990s, European integration has become differentiated integration. Treaty revisions and enlargements have resulted in opt-outs for countries such as Britain or Denmark, and in policy areas such as monetary union. Analysing under what conditions member states make use of the opportunity to opt- out or exclude other countries from European integration, we argue that different explanations apply to treaty and accession negotiations respectively. Threatening to block deeper integration, member states with strong national identities secure differentiations in treaty reform, particularly regarding the integration of core state powers. In enlargement, in turn, old member states fear economic disadvantages and low administrative capacity and, therefore impose differentiation on poor newcomers. A logistic regression analysis of the use of differentiation opportunities by member and candidate countries from Maastricht in 1993 to the Croatian accession in 2013 lends empirical support to these arguments. Introduction2 Since the early 1990s, European integration has become differentiated integration. This period has been characterized by a far-reaching extension of the European Union’s policy scope beyond -
On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics on Systemic Kevin Narizny Paradigms and Domestic Politics a Critique of the Newest Realism
On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics On Systemic Kevin Narizny Paradigms and Domestic Politics A Critique of the Newest Realism The late 1990s was a fertile time for new thinking about how to incorporate domestic politics into international relations theory. First, in “Taking Preferences Seriously,” Andrew Moravcsik formulated a new paradigm to integrate diverse strands of existing scholarship on the topic.1 The result, which he called “liberalism,” made so- cietal preferences the analytic foundation of state behavior. Then, in “Neo- classical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” Gideon Rose argued that several recently published books had successfully synthesized structural real- ism with ªne-grained insights about the domestic factors that mediate sys- temic pressures.2 Rose dubbed this research program “neoclassical realism” and championed it as an alternative to established theories both within and outside the realist paradigm. In short, both Moravcsik and Rose sought to draw new conceptual boundaries for the study of international relations. Thus far, the ªeld’s response to these two works has been quite different. Most scholars have accepted Moravcsik’s characterization of liberalism as a paradigmatic alternative to realism, but few have described their own work as liberal, even when it qualiªes as such. Meanwhile, neoclassical realism has generated considerable enthusiasm. Rose has not developed it further, but others have written theoretical essays that expand on its logic. Even more im- portant, numerous individuals have identiªed their empirical research with it. As of 2017, more than forty published works have used the term “neoclassical realism” or “neoclassical realist” in their title, and countless others have aligned themselves with it. -
Central and Eastern Europe in the European Union
This work has been published by the European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. © European University Institute 2018 Editorial matter and selection © Michał Matlak, Frank Schimmelfennig, Tomasz P. Woźniakowski, 2018 Chapters © authors individually 2018 doi:10.2870/675963 ISBN:978-92-9084-707-6 QM-06-18-198-EN-N This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the year and the publisher Views expressed in this publication reflect the opinion of individual authors and not those of the European University Institute. Artwork: ©Shutterstock: patrice6000 The European Commission supports the EUI through the European Union budget. This publication reflects the views only of the author(s), and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. EUROPEANIZATION REVISITED: CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Editors: Michał Matlak, Frank Schimmelfennig and Tomasz P. Woźniakowski In memoriam Nicky Owtram TABLE OF CONTENTS Biographies 1 Acknowledgments 4 Foreword 5 Europeanization Revisited: An Introduction Tomasz P. Woźniakowski, Frank Schimmelfennig and Michał Matlak 6 The Europeanization of Eastern Europe: the External Incentives Model Revisited Frank Schimmelfennig and Ulrich Sedelmeier 19 New -
European Integration (Theory) in Times of Crisis a Comparison of the Euro and Schengen Crises
European Integration (Theory) in Times of Crisis A comparison of the Euro and Schengen crises Frank Schimmelfennig, ETH Zürich, [email protected] Abstract The European Union has gone through major crises of its two flagship projects of the 1990s: the Euro and Schengen. Both crises had structurally similar causes and beginnings: exogenous shocks exposed the functional shortcomings of both integration projects and produced sharp distributional conflict among governments as well as an unprecedented politicization of European integration in member state societies. Yet they have resulted in significantly different outcomes: whereas the Euro crisis has brought about a major deepening of integration, the Schengen crisis has not. I put forward a neofunctionalist explanation of these different outcomes, which emphasizes variation in transnational interdependence and supranational capacity across the two policy areas. Acknowledgments For comments on previous versions of the paper, I thank audiences at an ACCESS EUROPE seminar at VU Amsterdam, the 2017 annual conference of the Swiss Political Science Association in St. Gallen, the 2017 EUSA Convention in Miami, and the Euro-CEFG workshop at the University of Rotterdam. Special thanks to Klaus Armingeon, Ben Crum, Madeleine Hosli, Matthias Mattijs, Thomas Spijkerboer, and Jonathan Zeitlin. Introduction The European Union (EU) has come to operate in crisis mode permanently. When the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force in December 2009, the EU finally appeared to have achieved institutional consolidation after the failure of the Constitutional Treaty. Around the same time, however, the mounting Greek balance-of-payment problem signaled the start of the Euro crisis. As soon as “Grexit” was averted in dramatic negotiations in July 2015, the migration flow across the Aegean Sea spiraled out of control, triggering a crisis of the Schengen regime of free movement across internal EU borders.