Search

Begin New Search Topic Policymaking Political Geography Europe

1. A new generation of European Citizens’ Panels – Making citizens’ voices a regular part of policymaking

Author:
Johannas Greubel
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
As a first concrete follow-up to the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE), beginning as of next year, the European Commission plans to make European Citizens' Panels (ECPs) a regular form of consultation ahead of key legislative proposals. Von der Leyen’s initiative to involve citizens in policy development is a substantial and positive innovation for EU law making and democracy. It not only answers citizens’ calls expressed in the CoFoE exercise. The measure will also give a boost to EU democracy and has the potential to mitigate shortcomings in the existing institutional consultation process. Yet, to make a difference, these Panels should be integrated into the current policymaking cycle by becoming part of the Commission's better regulation toolbox. This paper makes concrete recommendations on how this could be done by answering these three questions: When in the process and to what end? First, to make a difference, the Panels need to take place as early as possible in the development of a policy. Second, they must be consulted in a way that keeps the process as streamlined and effective as possible. The ideal way to reach these goals is to establish the ECPs as an additional consultation tool that the Commission can activate in addition to the public consultation carried out. The Panels would become an integral part of the institution's stakeholder consultation toolbox. When is a proposal ‘key’? First, the proposal must be a flagship proposal that is essential for one of the central priorities anchored in the Commission’s political guidelines. Second, as the Panel is supposed to complement the existing public consultation procedure, the proposal must be a legislative initiative with an Impact Assessment – thus also involving a public consultation – in which citizens are a crucial stakeholder group, primarily and directly affected by the policy. What is the follow-up? Citizens’ recommendations should directly feed into the Commission’s Impact Assessment of the respective measure and be annexed to it so that the co-legislators can take citizens’ recommendations into account at a later stage. If lawmakers follow these, the new generation of ECPs could improve the quality of legislative proposals from the Commission. Conversely, they risk becoming a fig leaf exercise, without any impact on the legislative initiative it accompanies. In this context, the Commission should use the upcoming ECP on food waste as a pilot Panel, as a steppingstone towards embedding ECPs fully in the EU’s decision-making.
Topic:
Public Opinion, European Union, Citizenship, European Commission, and Policymaking
Political Geography:
Europe

2. Assessing Russian State Capacity to Develop and Deploy Advanced Military Technology

Author:
Samuel Bendett, Richard Connolly, Jeffrey Edmonds, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, and Michael Kofman
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, many analysts and policymakers viewed Russia as a declining power. This mindset, formed by the sharp juxtaposition between the seeming strength of the Soviet Union and the chaos and weakness of Russia in the 1990s, has been an enduring heuristic for how Russia today is understood. The country’s stagnant and resource-dependent economy, declining population, and substantial brain drain have fed a sense that Russia’s days as a global power are numbered. The war in Ukraine has only accelerated some of these trends, further reinforcing such views. The Russian military’s poor performance, the degradation of its forces, and the imposition of sanctions and export controls that will restrict Russia’s ability to regenerate its forces have already led some to dismiss the country as a Potemkin power and pronounce the end of its great power status.1 Russia undoubtedly will emerge from its war on Ukraine as a weaker power. But even during the post-Soviet period of sustained economic stagnation, brain drain, and demographic decline, the Russian state developed a new generation of hypersonic missiles, air and missile defenses, and nuclear weapons with novel means of propulsion. Russia has demonstrated that it is able not only to bring to fruition late-Soviet designs, but also to develop a follow-on generation of capabilities. Likewise, the Kremlin has continued to modernize and expand its nuclear capabilities. Despite economic constraints, the Kremlin prioritized the development of its strategic nuclear forces by investing significant resources into developing and deploying new nuclear warheads and launchers, upgrading all legs of the nuclear triad, completing work on a hypersonic glide vehicle, and building a new intercontinental, nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered undersea autonomous torpedo. Of course, Russia’s past performance was under a different set of conditions. Moving forward, as a result of its invasion of Ukraine, Russia will face new and more significant constraints on its ability to modernize its military. But it is too soon to count Russia out. Policymakers need a more nuanced assessment of the nature of the future Russian threat. This report provides such an assessment, focusing on Russia’s ability to develop and deploy its nuclear capabilities through 2030. To that end, this report first identifies Russia’s own stated goals and objectives for the development of its nuclear forces looking out to 2030. Because Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting military degradation and economic sanctions and export controls introduce critical uncertainties about the Kremlin’s ability to execute these objectives, this report adopts a scenarios approach to forecasting Russia’s future nuclear capabilities. The report identifies two drivers that the authors view as most critical in shaping Russia’s ability to fulfill its stated objectives: the impact of Western sanctions on Russia’s government revenue and ability to access critical technology, and the extent of the degradation of the Russian military in Ukraine, which will force choices on the Kremlin about how to prioritize military expenditures. This report uses these two drivers to describe two scenarios that define the upper and lower boundaries of expectations for Russia’s nuclear capabilities, along with the implications of each of these scenarios for the United States and its allies. The scenarios, in other words, describe both a worst- and best-case state of affairs for Russia, and thus they help frame the problem for U.S. policymakers and planners. The report concludes with an assessment of key findings that emerge from the analysis and associated recommendations for the United States and Europe.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, Sanctions, Military, Russia-Ukraine War, and Policymaking
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

3. Doing things differently? Policy after Brexit

Author:
UK in a Changing Europe
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
UK in a Changing Europe, King's College London
Abstract:
Brexit is done, but what does it mean? Doing things differently? Policy after Brexit brings together a number experts in their respective fields to investigate how policy and policymaking have changed in a range of sectors. We asked them to consider how changes so far compare to what was promised before Brexit, and to analyse what changes lie ahead and what their impact might be. Their contributions are divided into three sections: first, those policy areas (trade, immigration, agriculture, fisheries and subsidies) where Brexit compelled the UK to put in place alternative policies. Second, those retaining significant amounts of EU law where the government could think seriously about divergence (financial services, procurement, taxation, consumer protection, environmental policy, energy policy and aviation). A final section considers new or emergent sectors in which both the UK and EU are looking to dip their regulatory toes (climate change and net zero, data and digital, autonomous vehicles and bioscience).
Topic:
Agriculture, Immigration, European Union, Regulation, Brexit, Trade, Fishing, Subsidies, and Policymaking
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

4. Academic Trends in European Union Studies in Turkey within the Framework of Turkey-EU Relations

Author:
Sezgin Mercan, Kıvılcım Romya Bilgin, Hacer Soykan Adaoğlu, and Yelda Ongun
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
Abstract:
The relationship between academics and policymakers has a complex and multi-layered structure, and there are different views on how this relationship should be. While discussing the political processes in the context of Turkey’s membership, the interactions between academics and policymakers in the relations between Turkey and the EU have the potential to provide solutions in the steps that need to be taken. However, the academic tendency of EU studies in Turkey will be revealed by answering questions such as what subjects are preferred by academics working on the EU in Turkey to study in the knowledge-production process, which subjects they prioritize in EU studies, what the effects of the ups and downs in Turkey-EU relations are on the academy, and how the academy positions itself in the field of EU studies. It is considered that such a study will contribute to further studies on how the academy’s relations with policymakers are and how they should be in studying Turkey-EU relations
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, European Union, Academia, Knowledge Production, and Policymaking
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, and Middle East

5. Higher Capacity with Limited Competence, Regional Development Agencies in Unitary States: The Case of The Emilia-Romagna

Author:
Aziz Tuncer
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Bilgi
Institution:
Sakarya University (SAU)
Abstract:
It is generally accepted that regional development policies and institutions in unitary states are shaped under potent influence of the centre without leaving any room for peculiar characteristics of the regions. As introduction of regional development policies preconditions devolution of some power to sub-national administrative tiers, central governments seek to strictly control the process and restraint the regional competencies. Region of Emilia-Romagna and ERVET confronted with the same difficulties and experienced a policy learning process during which they incrementally discovered various methods and instruments of policy to diminish the influence of the central constraints. Upon the analysis of ERVET, this article claims that the national government would not necessarily be the sole determinant of the regional development policies as generally accepted. If RDAs efficiently integrate political, cultural, social and economic particularities of the region into its administrative structures and policies and create a regional consensus upon their priorities, it would become more likely that they can play a remarkable role to exploit more power than central government allocated, and they can become rather influential in shaping regional development.
Topic:
Governance, Policymaking, and Regional Development
Political Geography:
Europe, Italy, and Emilia-Romagna