Introduction - Det samfunnsvitenskapelige fakultet...5 Funding Research and Innovation Action...

2017 was an eventful year for ARENA and for the world. Brexit negotiations, the launch of the new EU defence cooperation PESCO, the decline of democratic norms in several European countries, and numerous polarized elections across the EU prove that the need for thorough research on the European order is as pressing as ever.

ARENA is an internationally renowned research centre at the University of Oslo. We conduct theoretically oriented and empirically informed basic research on the dynamics of the evolving European political order, organised along four key dimensions: the democratic dimension, the EU’s executive dimension, the knowledge dimension and the external dimension.

ARENA’s research activity has increased considerably in 2017, with the kick-off of several projects and the recruitment of nine new researchers. Longtime ARENA researcher Åse Gornitzka was elected vice-rector of the University of Oslo, and we celebrated our founder Johan P. Olsen’s significant contribution to the field of European Studies at the launch of what he claimed to be his last book. Thus, for ARENA 2017 has been a year to learn from the past and to celebrate new beginnings.

In October, Chris Lord and ARENA organised a kick-off conference in Oslo for our newest project PLATO. This Horizon 2020-funded ‘European Training Network’ with 20 partners across Europe has recruited 15 PhD researchers. The project investigates the EU’s legitimacy in the wake of the financial crisis. Furthermore, in November we organised the kick-off workshop for REFLEX, a research project that examines the tension between depoliticised bodies and democracy in the context of European decision-making. We are also pleased to report that our research project GLOBUS, which studies the EU’s contributions to global justice, was highlighted by the European Commission as an ‘early success story’ in the evaluation of Horizon 2020.

Our publication rate is almost record high and the issues we deal with in Europe are becoming increasingly complex. ARENA is and continues to be a busy place.

Introduction

Prof. Erik O. EriksenARENA Director

Research projects EuroDiv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2GLOBUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4PLATO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6REFLEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8EUREX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10EPISTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Other projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Publications New books and special issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Journal articles and book chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Publications 2013–2017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31ARENA Working Papers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32ARENA Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33TARN Working Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36GLOBUS Research Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

EventsPLATO launched in Oslo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40REFLEX workshop: The legitimacy of depoliticised decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42GLOBUS workshop: Conceptualising global justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44ECPR General Conference in Oslo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Book launch Johan P. Olsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48EuroDiv: Who is the European citizen and who is the refugee? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49EuroDiv: Towards a differentiated Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50EuroDiv: Book discussion - Reflections on Europe’s past and present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50The new politics of EU external relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Final workshop in the ANTERO network on EU foreign policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51GLOBUS events and study tour to India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52ARENA Tuesday seminars and TARN lecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Other conferences and events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

OutreachThe Power of Economists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Research Council of Norway: Rebooting Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64The Global Justice Blog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Other outreach activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Media contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Organisation and staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Content

Research projects

2 Research projects

The aim of the EuroDiv project is to provide more knowledge on the implications of the current crisis and on possible ways out of the crisis.

AboutWhat are the implications of the current European crisis for democracy and integration in a long-term perspective? What does it mean that countries both within and outside the EU are integrated to different degrees? The assumption of the project Integration and division: Towards a segmented Europe? (EuroDiv) is that Europe is moving towards a permanent situation characterised by a more diversified EU.

ObjectivesEuroDiv aims to establish how the crisis is transforming Europe and the implications this has for Norway as a closely associated non-member of the EU. Greater differentiation may give rise to particular patterns of segmentation with profound democratic and constitutional implications. EuroDiv seeks to establish how prevalent such segmentation trends are and whether there are important – democratic – countervailing forces.

A major objective is therefore to identify what the democratic and constitutional implications are of current patterns of transformation, what they entail

for the sustainability of the European political order, and Norway’s role in relation to it.

Sub-projectsEuroDiv consists of four sub-projects, studying various aspects of differentiation in Europe. Law and democracy investigates the characteristics, scope and implications of the Eurozone crisis and its demo-cratic and constitutional implications. The European executive order analyses the impact of the crisis on administrative systems at the EU and national levels. Economic development as segmentation studies important changes in the design of the monetary union and if these developments contribute to further segmentation. The fourth sub-project studies differ-entiated integration in the domain of foreign, security and defence policy.

Activities in 2017 EuroDiv has published widely and organised a number of academic events throughout 2017. The project has engaged scholars from all over Europe and attracted attention from a wide sector audience.

EuroDiv organized several interdisciplinary workshops in Oslo, such as a workshop on European citizenship in light of the refugee crisis (p. 49) and one on the current internal dynamics in the EU, different models of partnership with the EU and the future of Norway-EU relations (p. 50). Furthermore, EuroDiv researchers organised and contributed to

Integration and divisionTowards a segmented Europe? (EuroDiv)

3

several panels at the ECPR General Conference in Oslo (pp. 46-47) and presented their research at the Research Council of Norway (p. 64).

EuroDiv’s framework of differentiated integration has become increasingly relevant because of Brexit. Thus, several EuroDiv researchers have been active in the Norwegian and international Brexit debate. The project’s research on the EU’s non-members has proved particularly useful for analysing the possible options and consequences for the UK after leaving the EU.

FundingThe Research Council of Norway’s research initiative ‘Europe in Transition’ (EUROPA).

Project period1 December 2013–30 November 2018

Project coordinator Erik O. Eriksen

ARENA project membersMorten Egeberg, John Erik Fossum, Christopher Lord, Helene Sjursen and Jarle Trondal (sub-project coordinators); Jørgen Bølstad, Mai’a K. Davis Cross, Åse Gornitzka, Cathrine Holst, Agustín José Menéndez, Asimina Michailidou, Espen D. H. Olsen, Johanna Strikwerda and Hans-Jörg Trenz

Cooperation Tom Christensen, University of Oslo Hans Otto Frøland, NTNUPer Lægreid, University of Bergen David Mayes, University of AucklandHilmar Rommetvedt, IRIS, StavangerBent Sofus Tranøy, Hedmark University College

More: arena.uio.no/eurodiv

Research projects

The EU financial crisis contributed to a more segmented Europe (Illustration: Colourbox)

4

Reconsidering European contributions to global justice (GLOBUS)Since its inception, the EU has proclaimed an ambition to promote justice at the global level. But what precisely is the EU’s contribution to global justice? And what could a just foreign policy look like?

AboutGLOBUS is a research project that critically examines the European Union’s contribution to global justice.

Challenges to global justice are multifaceted and what is just is contested. Combining normative and empirical research, GLOBUS explores underlying political and structural obstacles to justice. Analyses of the EU’s positions and policies are combined with in-depth studies of non-European perspectives on the practices of the EU.

ObjectivesGLOBUS scholars combine analyses of the EU’s positions and policies on key aspects of global justice, with in-depth studies of third parties’ (state and non-state actors) perspectives on the practice of the EU. There is a particular focus on emerging powers – the BRICS states. Core sectors to be analysed are climate change, development and trade, security, and migration. Gender is addressed as a cross-cutting issue within all sectors.

Researchers engage with nascent theoretical debates on how we should think about justice beyond the jurisdiction of the state. They contribute

to these debates by proposing a novel conceptual and evaluative scheme delineating three different conceptions of global political justice: Justice as non-dominance, impartiality and mutual recognition.

Activities in 2017GLOBUS has organised a range of events in 2017, including international workshops on migration, climate justice, trade and development, and the EU’s contribution to global justice, in Oslo, Bologna, Tübingen and Johannesburg (pp. 44-45 & 52-53). The project was responsible for a section at the European International Studies Association (EISA) Conference in Barcelona, with contributions from scholars both inside and outside the project. Furthermore, the GLOBUS team has given talks and presentations at several conferences and seminars, and hosted a number of lectures by external researchers and experts. GLOBUS also organized a policy dialogue meeting in Brussels with researchers and senior level practitioners working on EU foreign policy, and conducted a study tour to India in November (p. 52).

The GLOBUS Research Paper series has published six papers (p. 38) and several academic commentaries were published on the Global Justice Blog (p. 65).

The team at ARENA and the other GLOBUS partners have prepared a range of project events in 2018, including a series of workshops and lectures, as well as study tours to Brazil and South Africa.

Research projects

5

FundingResearch and Innovation Action financed by the European Union's Horizon 2020 programme. Societal Challenges 6: Europe in a changing world – Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies

Project period1 June 2016–31 May 2020

Project coordinatorHelene Sjursen

ARENA project membersMai’a K. Davis Cross, Erik O. Eriksen, John Erik Fossum, Cathrine Holst, Christopher Lord, Agustín José Menéndez, Asimina Michailidou, Kjartan Koch Mikalsen, Espen D. H. Olsen, Johanne Døhlie Saltnes and Anke S. Schwarzkopf

Cooperation Academic partners: University of Tübingen, Thomaz DiezUniversity College Dublin, Ben TonraUniversity of Bologna, Sonia LucarelliUniversity of the Witwatersrand, Pundy PillayState University of Rio de Janeiro, Leticia PinheiroO.P. Jindal Global University, Rohee DasguptaRenmin University of China, Xinning Song

Scientific advisory board: Cecilia Albin, James Bohman, Jean-Pierre Cabestan, Michael Davis, Nancy Fraser, Raj Kumar, Christina Lafont, Patricia Mindus, Jennifer Mitzen, Marc F. Plattner, Teija Tiilikainen

More: globus.uio.no

What, if any, is the EU’s contribution to global justice? (Illustration: Colourbox)

Research projects

6

The post-crisis legitimacy of the European Union (PLATO)Multiple crises have created new legitimacy challenges for the EU. Have the EU’s responses to these crises been legitimate?

AboutThe Innovative Training Network PLATO brings together nine university partners from across Europe and eleven training partners from the policy advice, civil society and consulting sector, media and career development. The PhD programme trains 15 PhD researchers to contribute to solving key policy issues for Europe by undertaking a common multidisciplinary investigation into crisis and the EU’s legitimacy. PLATO offers an intensive and demanding programme of academic training as well as training in a range of professional skills, work experience from relevant sectors and individual professional career planning.

ObjectivesIn the wake of the financial crisis, EU governments have spent taxpayers’ money to rescue European banks, straining public finances and social protections in all EU member states. Core state powers of taxing, borrowing and spending have been transferred to the European Central Bank, the European Banking Authority, and other authorities created through new intergovernmental treaties. The increased powers of non-elected technocratic institutions in financial policy raise new questions about the EU’s legitimacy.

PLATO investigates the legitimacy of the EU’s responses to the financial crisis. It uses the example of the financial crisis to build and test theory of what would amount to a legitimacy crisis in the case of a multi-state, non-state political system such as the EU. It does so through multiple connected case studies undertaken by 15 PhD researchers within the network. Their projects investigate different actors with whom the Union needs to be legitimate as well as different standards by which the EU may need to be legitimate.

Activities in 2017Through a coordinated recruitment process during the winter and spring, the consortium employed an excellent group of 15 PhD researchers who started in September/October 2017. They come from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds and bring into the project relevant work experience from either the non-profit sector or private sector, media, academia, think tanks, and EU institutions. Three PhDs started at ARENA.

The team met at the project’s kick-off conference in Oslo on 14-20 October. The event was organised by ARENA and brought together more than 50 project participants for academic discussions and networking (pp. 40-41). Career development planning and a supervision workshop were also in the programme.

In the first year, PLATO established supervision teams, career development plans, a detailed training programme, and prepared two PhD schools.

Research projects

7

FundingMarie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Network (ITN), funded by the European Union’s EU Horizon 2020 programme

Project period1 January 2017–31 December 2020

Project coordinatorChristopher Lord

ARENA project membersClaire Godet, Joris Melman, Jan Pesl (PhDs), John Erik Fossum, Cathrine Holst, Asimina Michailidou, Espen D. H. Olsen, Jarle Trondal (supervisors), Erik O. Eriksen, Agustín José Menéndez and Hans-Jörg Trenz

Cooperation Academic partners: Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies, Sciences Po Paris, Institute for Advanced Studies (Vienna), Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Jagiellonian University, University of Antwerp, University of Cambridge, University of Twente Training partners: Bruegel, Centre for European Policy Studies, Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael), Democracy International, EUobserver, European Citizen Action Service, Jacques Delors Institute – Berlin, Kellen, Polish Institute of International Affairs, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Vitae - The Career Development Organisation (CRAC)

More: plato.uio.no

Did the way the EU handled the financial crisis create a deeper legitimacy crisis? (photo: John Towner/Unsplash)

Research projects

8

Democracy and expert rule The quest for reflexive legitimacy (REFLEX) How can depoliticised decision-making be legitimate? REFLEX examines the tension between knowledge and democracy in the European context of decision-making.

AboutModern democracies increasingly rely on expertise and independent expert bodies in political decision processes. Central banks, international organisations and courts, and not least EU agencies, are typical examples. The EU has set up more than 40 agencies to perform specific tasks under EU law, in areas such as food safety, aviation security and defence cooperation. Norway participates in 27 of these agencies, mainly through the EEA Agreement.

Many of these bodies make decisions with consequences for citizens’ well-being and freedom and operate within large zones of discretion. There is thus a risk of policy formation being based on experts’ judgements rather than on citizens’ opinion. The delegation of authority to expert bodies raises some fundamental questions for democracy, and how such bodies can be legitimate.

ObjectivesREFLEX aims to establish what kind of democratic problem we are witnessing. That requires paying attention to the role and status of depoliticised bodies in democratic theory. Can they be justified in democratic terms?

REFLEX studies a selection of depoliticised bodies in the EU multilevel legislative chain within fields such as financial regulation, medicine, border protection, law enforcement and defence procurement. It compares depoliticised bodies under different formal arrangements – intergovernmental and supranational – in order to establish whether better ways of organising the relationship between expertise and politics exist.

By analysing the institutional and public linkages of several depoliticised bodies, REFLEX will be able to examine actual differences in the influence of expertise and their democratic check. These studies provide a broad empirical basis from which to establish a normative model of depoliticised bodies – an institutional design that meets democratic criteria. At the same time, they will lead to new empirical knowledge of whether or not the power of expertise is wielded legitimately.

Activities in 2017REFLEX recruited one PhD fellow and two post-doctoral researchers. The project has also hosted a visiting researcher in 2016-17. The kick-off workshop ‘The legitimacy of depoliticised decision-making’ (p. 42-43) was organised in Oslo in November. The workshop brought together all project participants at ARENA and several collaborators from Norway and abroad.

Research projects

9

As part of the Toppforsk-scheme, one of REFLEX’s primary aims is to establish close links to other projects and to enable the project group to apply for additional research funding. Much attention has been paid to this in the first year of the project. Several research proposals have been submitted to funding bodies such as the European Research Council (ERC).

FundingREFLEX is jointly funded by the Research Council of Norway's FRIPRO Toppforsk (top research) scheme and the University of Oslo. Toppforsk funding is a targeted initiative for providing substantial, long-term funding to research groups with a potential to become international leaders in their field.

Project period1 July 2016–30 June 2021

Project coordinatorErik O. Eriksen

ARENA project membersAndreas Eriksen, Trym Nohr Fjørtoft, Alexander Katsaitis, Christopher Lord, Asimina Michailidou, Kjartan Koch Mikalsen and Helene Sjursen

CooperationJames Bohman, Saint Louis UniversityClaudio Radaelli, University of ExeterDeirdre Curtin, University of AmsterdamRainer Forst, Goethe-University Frankfurt/MainChristian Joerges, University of BremenRichard Bellamy, University College LondonCharles Sabel, Columbia University Rainer Schmalz-Bruns, University of Hannover

More: arena.uio.no/reflex

How can expert bodies such as the European Banking Authority (EBA) be legitimate? (Photo: EBA)

Research projects

10

EUREX looks into the role of scientific ex-pertise in the preparation of public policies. What are the consequences for democracy of increased expertisation and Europeanisa-tion?

AboutPublic inquiry commissions are a core element of policy-making in the Nordic countries. Previous research suggests that these commissions function both as an extension of public administration, as a way of including interest groups in policy formulation, and a channel for incorporating expert advice in decision-making.

However, ongoing changes in conditions for governance are challenging the traditional role of inquiry commissions. Both expertisation, the increas-ing reliance on experts in politics and public adminis-tration, and Europeanisation, the processes by which national governance systems adapt to European-wide norms and EU-level bodies, have put existing policy advice mechanisms under pressure. These processes raise fundamental questions about the continued functioning and legitimacy of inquiry commissions: Is the investigation of policy problems and solutions increasingly left to a small elite of national and inter-national experts? Are processes of expertisation and Europeanisation eroding the democratic and govern-ance credentials of inquiry commissions?

ObjectivesEUREX will provide a study centred on the Norwegian system of public inquiry commissions, known as NOUs (Norges offentlige utredninger) where two main research questions will be examined:

1. How has the NOU system changed in re-sponse to processes of expertisation and Europeanisation?

2. What are the consequences of these changes for democracy and good governance?

These questions will be addressed within a multi-dimensional, multi-method research design that incorporates historical, comparative, European and normative dimensions. The project will analyse the transformation of the NOU system over time in light of expertisation and Europeanisation, across policy areas, in contrast to simultaneous changes in other countries, and from the perspective of competing normative goals.

Activities in 2017EUREX has recruited a PhD student and a postdoc-toral researcher. The project has already led to a number of publications: the project coordinators pub-lished an article in Science and Public Policy about advisory commissions and contributed with a chapter in a book about the Nordic models in political science. Two EUREX researchers are working on a special issue of European Politics and Society on expertisa-

Expertisation of public inquiry commissions in a Europeanised administrative order (EUREX)

Research projects

11

tion of non-majoritarian institutions. Moreover, data on all Norwegian public inquiry commissions (1972-2016) were gathered to create a complete database.

In cooperation with Partnerforum, EUREX organised a book launch for Johan Christensen’s monograph The Power of Economists Within the State (Stanford University Press). Christensen presented comparative case studies on how the influence of economists affect the extent to which states adopt market-oriented tax policies (pp. 62-63).

Furthermore, EUREX project participants presented early conclusions of the project at the ECPR General Conference in Oslo (p. 46).

Funding Funded by the Research Council of Norway's DEMOS programme.

Project period1 July 2016 - 30 June 2020

Project coordinatorsCathrine Holst (ARENA) and Johan Christensen (Leiden University)

ARENA project membersÅse Gornitzka, Stine Hesstvedt, Eva Krick and Helene Sjursen

CooperationKathia Serrano-Velarde, Heidelberg UniversityPeter Munk Christiansen, Aarhus University Bo Rothstein, University of Gothenburg

More: arena.uio.no/eurex

Research projects

How has the NOU system changed in response to expertisation and Europeanisation? (Illustration: Colourbox)

12

The EPISTO project examines and assesses the legitimacy of expert rule in modern democracies with a particular focus on the EU and European Commission expert groups.

AboutThe EU has recently taken unprecedented administrative and legal measures to address threats of terror, the Euro crisis, and environmental challenges. Critics claim that the Union’s crisis management contributes to pushing the EU further towards technocracy and expert-rule. Is Europe abandoning democracy as we know it? And if so, is this a problem? Some would say no. To deal with the risks and hazards globalisation throws upon us, they would argue, the best available expertise must be mobilised and given the necessary power, even if we are challenging familiar ideas of democracy.

A key question for the project Why not epistocracy? Political legitimacy and ‘the fact of expertise’ (EPISTO) is how to combine democratic procedures with the demands for knowledge-based politics and wide use of experts and expertise. ‘Epistocracy’ refers to ‘rule of the knowers’, and EPISTO elaborates on arguments for expert-rule, tests the soundness of their empirical assumptions, and develops a normative defence of democracy in Europe that specifies the legitimate role and scope of expert power.

ObjectivesEPISTO will elaborate on different dimensions of knowledge-based rule and develop a typology for epistocracy. The proper standards for assessing the normative legitimacy of expertise arrangements will be discussed and identified. The project will map and analyse the European Commission’s expert group system and its composition and powers, with the aim to study expertise behaviour, deliberation and rationality. This system’s normative legitimacy will be discussed and assessed in light of empirical findings.

Activities in 2017The project team has published a range of publications in renowned academic journals.The project coordinator was guest editor for a special issue of the Journal of Social Epistemology with the title ‘Epistemic democracy, deliberative quality and expertise’. The EPISTO team has presented research from the project at a number of seminars and conferences nationally and internationally. Furthermore, EPISTO has organized a number of workshops over the course of the project, including collaborative events with other leading research institutes such as the Quality of Government (QoG) at the University of Gothenburg and the Centre of Excellence PluriCourts at the University of Oslo.

In 2017, EPISTO also hosted a guest researcher who completed an article on scientists as experts in policy-making.

Why not epistocracy? Political legitimacy and ‘the fact of expertise’ (EPISTO)

Research projects

13

FundingThe EPISTO project reached the final round of the European Research Council’s Starting Grant competition and was later financed by the Research Council of Norway.

Project period1 July 2012–30 June 2018

Project coordinatorCathrine Holst

ARENA project membersSilje H. Tørnblad

Cooperation Fredrik Engelstad, Johan Karlsson Schaffer, Ole Jacob Sending and Hege Skjeie, University of OsloMargareta Bertilsson and Christian Rostböll, University of CopenhagenRainer Forst, Frankfurt UniversityCristina Lafont, Northwestern UniversityHelene Landemore, University of YaleUlrike Liebert, University of BremenKasper Lippert-Rasmussen, University of AarhusHelen Longino, Stanford University Anders Molander, Oslo and Akershus University CollegeKalypso Nicolaïdis, University of OxfordBo Rothstein, University of Gothenburg

More: arena.uio.no/episto

Research projects

Was Plato right? Should the experts rule? (Photo: Wikipedia Commons)

14 Research projects

The Academic Research Network on Agencification of EU Executive Governance (TARN)TARN is a Europe-wide network of nine academic partners including a multidisciplinary group of scholars from law, social and political sciences and public administration. It aims to contribute to a better understanding of agencification of EU executive governance and to foster dialogue between academics and practitioners. TARN addresses the many facets of the problems posed by the process of agencification in the EU. It concentrates on three pressing concerns: constitutionality, powers and legitimacy of EU agencies; the role of EU agencies as global actors and EU agencies’ functional operation and effectiveness.

Project typeJean Monnet Network co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union.

Coordinators Ellen Vos, Maastricht UniversityMichelle Everson, Birkbeck University of London

Project period1 October 2015–30 September 2018

ARENA project membersMorten Egeberg, Jarle Trondal

More: tarn.maastrichtuniversity.nl

Addressing the Needs on Teaching, Education and Research in EU Foreign Policy (ANTERO)One of the challenges the EU is confronted with is that of internal and external legitimacy. On internal legitimacy, the Union has been faced with a clear decline in popularity among its citizens. In terms of its external legitimacy, survey figures show that the EU is a largely unknown actor among the citizens of many third countries. Moreover, those who know the EU are far from unanimously positive about its impact on their country or on international affairs.

ANTERO studies the effectiveness, coherence, and success of the EU as an international actor. It aims to strengthen the interaction between research in the field of EU foreign policy and the translation of that research through innovative, research-led teaching.

Other projectsIn addition to projects coordinated by ARENA, the centre’s researchers participate in a number of other international projects and networks.

15Research projects


Coordinator Ben Tonra, University College Dublin

Project period1 September 2014–31 August 2017

ARENA project membersHelene Sjursen, Mai’a K. Davis Cross, Guri Rosén, Marianne Riddervold, Tine E. J. Brøgger, Johanne Døhlie Saltnes and Johanna Strikwerda

More: www.eufp.eu/antero

Network on Research and Teaching in EU Foreign Affairs (NORTIA)The objective of NORTIA is to develop, deepen and strengthen a global community of senior and junior scholars in EU foreign policy. NORTIA will do capacity-building on research and teaching innovation for a multinational cross-institutional network of scholars. The NORTIA scholarly goal is to apply lessons learned from 50 years of foreign policy cooperation to the challenges of a potentially fragmenting global order and Europe’s own existential crises. The network unites scholars from different generational, geographical and methodological perspectives to

ARENA is part of the Network on Research and Teaching in Foreign Affairs (NORTIA) (Illustration: Colourbox)

16 Research projects

build knowledge and exchange ideas on the internal and external forces shaping EU foreign policy cooperation.

Project typeJean Monnet Network funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union.

Coordinators Georgana Noutcheva, Maastricht University andHeidi Maurer, London School of Economics (LSE)


ARENA project membersHelene Sjursen (principal investigator), Tine E. Johnsen Brøgger, Mai’a K. Davis Cross, Johanne Døhlie Saltnes, Anke S. Schwarzkopf and Johanna Strikwerda

More: www.eufp.eu/welcome-nortia

Interparliamentary Cooperation in the EU’s External Action (PACO)Interparliamentary Cooperation in the EU’s external action – Parliamentary Scrutiny and Diplomacy in the EU and beyond (PACO) brings together three interrelated teaching and research areas: EU external relations, inter-parliamentary cooperation and

parliamentary diplomacy.PACO aims to discover and explain if and why

inter-parliamentary cooperation in the field of external relations (CFSP/CSDP, human rights, development, trade, etc.) has contributed towards increased scrutiny by the European Parliament and national parliaments; and if and why parliamentary diplomacy can add to the diplomatic tool set (i.e. public diplomacy) in the EU’s cooperation with third partners via its own delegations at the bilateral and multilateral levels. PACO further aims to contribute to a new understanding of the role of European parliaments in EU external action.


Coordinator Jan Wouters, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, University of Leuven


ARENA project membersJohn Erik Fossum, Christopher Lord and Espen D. H. Olsen

More: www.ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/projects/paco-project/

17

Enhancing Visibility of the Academic Dialogue on EU-Turkey Cooperation (VIADUCT)VIADUCT’s general objective is to foster policy dialogue and to foster dialogue among academics and pracitioners on recent developments in both the EU and Turkey. The aim is to improve and to enhance the teaching and research on this topic. VIADUCT’s target groups are academics, students, practitioners, civil society and the general public. The network brings together 40 partners from 36 countries, including all EU member states, Turkey, Egypt, Georgia, Iceland, Iraq, Israel, Switzerland, and Norway.

Research projects


Coordinators Wolfgang Wessels and Funda Tekin, University of Cologne


ARENA project membersJohn Erik Fossum

More: www.viaduct.eu

The PACO network studies the European Parliament (photo: European Union)

18

Post-Brexit Europe: Lessons from the European Economic Area (PELEEA)

When voters in the United Kingdom opted to leave the European Union, re-conceptualising European integration swiftly became one of the most pressing political challenges of our time. PELEEA aims to make a significant and timely contribution to this debate drawing largely on the unique and highly relevant experience of Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway, who have structured their relations with the EU through the European Economic Area.

The project is led by the Institute of International Affairs at the University of Iceland and the Centre for Small State Studies working in close collaboration with ARENA, the University of Cambridge, and the Liechtenstein-Institut.

PELEEA will include workshops and events in Oslo, Cambridge, Brussels and Reykjavik. Short policy recommendations will be published following each workshop and at the end of the project publish a book which explores what it takes to build a successful association model.


Coordinators Jóhanna Jónsdóttir and Baldur Thorhallsson, University of Iceland


ARENA project membersJohn Erik Fossum

More: ams.hi.is/en/research/research-projects/jean-monnet-projects/

(Illustration: Colourbox)

Research projects

Publications

20 Publications

New books and special issues 2017The Politics of Crisis in Europe Mai’a K. Davis CrossCambridge Uni. Press, ISBN 978-1-10714-783-6

The book explores the resilience of the EU in the face of repeated crises perceived to threaten its very existence. While it is often observed after the fact that these crises serve as opportunities for integration, this is the first critical analysis to suggest that we cannot fully understand the nature and severity of these crises without recognising the role of societal reaction to events and the nature of social narratives about crisis, especially those advanced by the media. Through a close examination of the 2003 Iraq crisis, the 2005 constitutional crisis, and the 2010–12 Eurozone crisis, this book identifies a pattern and demonstrates how narratives about crises provide the means to openly air underlying societal tensions that would otherwise remain under the surface, impeding further integration.

Federal Challenges: Insights from the EU and Federal StatesJohn Erik Fossum and Markus Jachtenfuchs (eds)Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 24(4)

The purpose of this special issue is to discuss what we may learn from thinking about the EU in federal terms. The point of departure is that this represents a two-fold challenge. It is on the one hand a matter

of establishing ‘how federal’ the EU is (the EU’s federal challenge). On the other, the EU has federal features but is not a state, which raises the question of whether federal theory and practice may have to be adapted to take proper account of the EU (the EU’s challenge to federalism). The contributions to this collection supplement and extend existing scholarship through focusing on two important lines of inquiry. The first focuses on the relationship between federalism and democracy, with particular emphasis on how federal systems respond to and deal with citizens’ interests and concerns, within and outside the political system. Particular emphasis is placed on representation, in the process of federalization, and as a feature of established systems. The second line of inquiry places the emphasis on the relationship among the governments of federal systems. The focus is on intergovernmental relations, and the particular merits that emanate from studying these from a federal perspective.

Contributions by ARENA’s staff John Erik Fossum and Markus Jachtenfuchs, ‘Federal

challenges and challenges to federalism. Insights from the EU and federal states’

John Erik Fossum, ‘Democratic federalization and the interconnectedness-consent conundrum’

21Publications

Federal Challenges and Challenges to FederalismJohn Erik Fossum and Markus Jachtenfuchs (eds)Routledge, ISBN 978-1-13829-901-6

This book was originally published as a special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy (see p. 20).

How to Get out of the European TrapJohn Erik Fossum, Hauke Brunkhorst and Monica Elgmüller (eds)European Law Journal, vol. 23(5)

The authors of the articles that make up this special issue share the view that it is time that European legal and politico-scientific scholarship take crises in general, and especially the manifold and overlapping set of crises that Europe is presently undergoing,

seriously. It is time to drop any form of determinism, to overcome the ‘Whig’ reading of the history of European integration, and delve more deeply into the structural causes and implications of the crises; indeed, it is time to take seriously the breadth, depth and scope of the crises, and the extent to which what is indeed a clear rupture with the legal, political and social constitutional model of the Democratic and Social state is becoming a new form of government unto itself: the main implication being that we need to be open to question the way in which legal and social science scholars conduct research.

22

Social Media and European Politics: Rethinking Power and Legitimacy in the Digital EraAsimina Michailidou and Mauro Barisione (eds)Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-13759-889-9

This book investigates the role of social media in European politics and how it changes the focus, frames and actors of public discourse around the EU decision-making process. The contributors test the hypothesis that the internet and social media are promoting a structural transformation of European public spheres which goes well beyond previously known processes of mediatisation of EU politics. This transformation brings about the more fundamental challenge of changing power relations, through processes of active citizen empowerment and exertion of digitally networked counter-power by civil society, news media, and political actors, as well as rising contestation of representative legitimacy of the EU institutions. The book offers a comprehensive approach to the analysis of political agency and social media in European Union politics, by bringing together scholarly works from the fields of public sphere theory, digital media, political networks, journalism studies, euroscepticism, political activism and social movements, political parties and election campaigning, public opinion and audience studies.

Contributions by ARENA’s staff Asimina Michailidou and Mauro Barisione, ‘Do We

need to Rethink EU Politics in the Social Media Era? An Introduction to the Volume’

Asimina Michailidou, ‘Twitter, Public Engagement and the Eurocrisis: More than an Echo Chamber?’

Helena Seibicke, ‘Campaigning for Gender Equality Through Social Media: The European Women’s Lobby’

Hans-Jörg Trenz, Michael Bossetta and Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, ‘Engaging with European Politics Through Twitter and Facebook: Participation Beyond the National?’

Publications

23Publications

Hvordan virker EU? Espen D. H. Olsen, Guri Rosén and Jarle TrondalUniversitetsforlaget, ISBN 978-82-15-02634-3

This book gives an introduction to the functioning of the EU, the most important theoretical perspectives for how to understand the EU and European integration, and Norway’s relationship with the EU. A useful book for practioners and students in need of a basic introduction to the EU.

EU fremstilles ofte som et byråkratisk uhyre eller et mellomstatlig samarbeidsprosjekt hvor bare de største medlemsstatene bestemmer. Systemet er imidlertid mer sammensatt: EU er et politisk og administrativt system der statene inngår. Denne boken gir en grundig innføring i hvordan EUs flernivåstruktur er bygget opp, hvordan sammenvevingen av ulike styringsnivå påvirker utformingen av EUs politikk og politiske system, samt hvordan Norges samarbeid med EU er organisert, og hvilke faktorer som former Norges befatning med EU.

Boken retter seg mot alle som ønsker en grundig, men lettfattelig innføring i hvordan EU er organisert og fungerer i praksis.

Democratic Accountability, Political Order and Change: Exploring Accountability Processes in an Era of European TransformationJohan P. OlsenOxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19880-060-6

The aim of this book is both to contribute to the theorisation of democratic accountability and to discuss what accountability processes tell us about political order and orderly change in general.Ongoing transformations of the political organisation of Europe, where both the nation-state and the European Union are challenged, make it possible to explore phenomena that are difficult to see in stable periods. An upsurge in accountability-demands, where political leaders are required to explain and justify what they are doing, is one such phenomenon.Mainstream approaches to democratic accountability, assuming settled principal-agent relations may give insight into the routines of institutional accountability. This book argues that it is not enough to analyse how accountability processes contribute to routinised maintenance of an established order within relatively stable, simple, and well-known situations. We need to understand accountability in eras of institutional confusion and contestation and in dynamic, complex, and unknown situations.

24

Contributions by ARENA’s staff Jarle Trondal, ‘A research agenda of international

public administration’

— ‘Conceptualizing common political order: an introduction’

— ‘The rise of independent supranational administration: the case of the European Union administration’

— ‘The rise of international public administration: observations from the International Atomic Energy Agency’

Jarle Trondal, Anchrit Wille and Anne Elizabeth Stie, ‘The rise of international accountability institutions: the case of the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman’

Publications

The Rise of Common Political OrderJarle Trondal (ed.)Edward Elgar Publishing, ISBN 978-1-78643-499-9

The book aims to define common political order in conceptual terms, to study instances of order formation at different levels of governance and ultimately to comprehend how they profoundly challenge inherent political orders.The book’s objectives are twofold: first, to explain institutional birth and growth, and second, and most importantly, to assess key effects of order formation. To what extent, and under which conditions, does common political order transform pre-existing political orders? In sum, the book discusses how we can assess theoretically and empirically the rise, stagnation and retrenchment of common political order in Europe. The authors tackle these questions with empirical illustrations of emergent political orders at international, inter-regional and local levels.

25Publications

Journal articlesBølstad, Jørgen and Christoph Elhardt, ‘Capacity,

willingness, and sovereign default risk: reassuring the market in times of crisis’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(4): 802-817

Cross, Mai’a K. Davis, ‘Counter-terrorism in the EU’s external relations’, Journal of European Integration, 39(5): 609-624

Cross, Mai’a K. Davis and Teresa La Porte, ‘The European Union and image resilience during times of crisis: the role of public diplomacy’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 12(4): 257-282

Egeberg, Morten, Åse Gornitzka and Jarle Trondal, ‘Merit-based recruitment boosts good governance: how do European Union agencies recruit their personnel?’, International Review of Administrative Sciences

Egeberg, Morten and Jarle Trondal, ‘Researching European Union agencies: what have we learnt (and where do we go from here)?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(4): 675-690

Fossum, John Erik, ‘The European Union and the populist challenge’, Inroads: The Canadian Journal of Opinion, 41

Gornitzka, Åse and Peter Maassen, ‘European Flagship universities: Autonomy and change’, Higher Education Quarterly, 71(3): 231-238

Gornitzka, Åse, Peter Maassen and Harry De Boer, ‘Change in university governance structures in continental Europe’, Higher Education Quarterly, 71(3): 274-289

Gornitzka, Åse, Peter Maassen and Tatiana Fumasoli, ‘University reform and institutional autonomy: a framework for analysing the living autonomy’, Higher Education Quarterly, 71(3): 239-250

Holst, Cathrine and Johan Christensen, ‘Advisory commissions, academic expertise and democratic legitimacy: the case of Norway’, Science and Public Policy, 44(6): 821-833

Holst, Cathrine and Anders Molander, ‘Public deliberation and the fact of expertise: making experts accountable’, Social Epistemology, 31(3): 235-250

Krick, Eva, ‘Ensuring social acceptance of the energy transition. The German government’s “consensus management” strategy’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 20(1): 64-80

— ‘The myth of effective veto power under the rule of consensus. Dynamics and democratic legitimacy of collective decision-making by “tacit consent”’, Revue Négociations, 1(27): 109-128

26

Lord, Christopher, ‘An indirect legitimacy argument for a directly elected European Parliament’, European Journal of Political Research, 56(3): 512-528

— ‘How can parliaments contribute to the legitimacy of the European Semester?’, Parliamentary Affairs, 70(4): 673-690

— ‘The legitimacy of exits from the European Union’, Journal of European Integration, 39(5): 499-513

Mayes, David, Giannoula Karamichailidou and Hanno Stremmel, ‘Achieving a balance between the avoidance of banking problems and their resolution. Can financial cycle dynamics predict bank distress?’, Journal of Banking Regulation, 19(1): 18-32

Menéndez, Agustín J., ‘Constitutional review, Luxembourg style: a structural critique of the way in which the European court of justice reviews the constitutionality of the laws of the member states of the European Union’, Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 9(2): 116-145

— ‘Editorial: Democracy, translucidity and accountability: the Eurozone vs. the democratic right to know’, European Law Journal, 23(1-2): 2-8

— ‘Neoconstitucionalismo y constitucionalismo democrático frente al derecho de la Unión Europea’, DOXA, Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, special issue: 171-177

— ‘The crisis of law and the European crises: From the social and democratic rechtsstaat to the consolidating state of (pseudo-)technocratic governance’, Journal of Law and Society, 44(1): 56-78

Michailidou, Asimina, ‘The Germans are back: euroscepticism and anti-Germanism in crisis-stricken Greece’, National Identities, 19(1): 91-108

Michailidou, Asimina, Massimo Airoldi and Mauro Barisione, ‘Understanding a digital movement of opinion: the case of #RefugeesWelcome’, Information, Communication & Society

Olsen, Johan P., ‘Accountability democrática e a mudança da ordem política europeia’, Revisto do Servico Publico, 68(4): 745-784

— ‘Democratic accountability and the terms of political order’, European Political Science Review, 9(4): 519-537

Praino, Diego, ‘A new system of government? Defining the confidence relationship of the EU model’, Journal of European Integration, 39(3): 319-332

Publications

27Publications

Riddervold, Marianne and Jarle Trondal, ‘Integrating nascent organisations. On the settlement of the European External Action Service’, Journal of European Integration, 39(1): 33-47

Rosén, Guri, ‘The impact of norms on political decision-making: how to account for the European Parliament’s empowerment in EU external trade policy’, Journal of European Public Policy, 24(10): 1450-1470

Rosén, Guri and Anne Elizabeth Stie, ‘Not worth the net worth? The democratic dilemmas of privileged access to information’, Politics and Governance, 5(3): 51-61

Saltnes, Johanne Døhlie, ‘Norm collision in the EU’s external policies. The case of EU sanctions towards Rwanda’, Cooperation and Conflict, 52(4): 553-570

Sjursen, Helene and Guri Rosén, ‘Arguing sanctions: on the EU’s response to the crisis in Ukraine’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(1): 20-36

Trenz, Hans-Jörg and Deniz Neriman Duru, ‘From diversity to conviviality: intra-EU mobility and international migration to Denmark in times of economic recession’, Journal of ethnic and migration studies, 43(4): 613-632

Trenz, Hans-Jörg and Anna Triandafyllidou, ‘Complex and dynamic integration processes in Europe: intra EU mobility and international migration in times of recession’, Journal of ethnic and migration studies, 43(4): 546-559

Trondal, Jarle and Christopher Ansell, ‘Governing turbulence: an organizational-institutional agenda’, Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(1): 43-57

28 Publications

Trondal, Jarle and Michael W. Bauer, ‘Conceptualizing the European multilevel administrative order: capturing variation in the European administrative system’, European Political Science Review, 9(1): 73-94

Trondal, Jarle, Zuzana Murdoch and Benny Geys, ‘How pre- and post-recruitment factors shape role perceptions of European Commission officials’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 31(1): 85-101

Bølstad, Jørgen, ‘Is there a rational public?’ in Justin Fisher, Edward Fieldhouse, Mark N. Franklin, Rachel Gibson, Marta Cantijoch and Christopher Wlezien (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Elections, Voting Behavior and Public Opinion, Routledge.

Cross, Mai’a K. Davis and Diarmuid Torney, ‘Environmental and Climate Diplomacy: Building Coalitions through Persuasion’, in Camilla Adelle, Katja Biedenkopf and Diarmuid Torney (eds) European Union External Environmental Policy Rules, Regulation and Governance Beyond Borders, Palgrave Macmillan.

Eriksen, Erik O., ‘Democratic Innovations Beyond the State’, in Andreas Grimmel (ed.) The Crisis of the European Union Challenges, Analyses, Solutions, Routledge.

— ‘Structural Injustice: The Eurozone Crisis and the Duty of Solidarity’, in Andreas Grimmel and Susanne My Giang (eds) Solidarity in the European Union. A Fundamental Value in Crisis, Springer.

Fossum, John Erik, ‘Democracy and Legitimacy in the EU. Challenges and Options’, in Lorenzo Vai, Pier D. Tortola and Nicoletta Pirozzi (eds) Governing Europe. How to Make the EU More Efficient and Democratic, Peter Lang Publishing Group.

Book chapters

29Publications

Holst, Cathrine, ‘Epistocracy on Seasteds?’ in Victor Tiberius (ed.) Seasteds: Opportunities and Challenges for Small New Societies, vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich.

Holst, Cathrine, Åse Gornitzka and Johan Christensen, ‘Knowledge Regimes in the Nordic Countries’, in Oddbjørn Knutsen (ed.) The Nordic Models in Political Science: Challenged, but Still Viable? Fagbokforlaget.

Holst, Cathrine, Hege Skjeie and Mari Teigen, ‘Benevolent Contestations: Mainstreaming, Judicialisation, and Europeanization in the Norwegian Gender+ Equality Debate’, in Heather MacRae and Elaine Weiner (eds) Towards Gendering Institutionalism, Rowman & Littlefield International.

Lord, Christopher, ‘Segmentation, Differentiation and the Aims of European Integration’, in Andreas Grimmel (ed.) The Crisis of the European Union. Challenges, Analyses, Solutions, Routledge.

— ‘Legitimacy and Democracy’, in Christopher Hill, Michael Smith and Sophie Vanhoonacker (eds) International Relations and the European Union, Oxford University Press.

Lord, Christopher and Pieter de Wilde, ‘Assessing Actually-Existing Trajectories of EU Politicisation’, in Pieter de Wilde, Anna Leupold and Henning Schmitke (eds) The Differentiated Politicisation of European Governance, Routledge.

30 Publications

Menéndez, Agustín J., ‘The Guardianship of European Constitutionality: A structural Critique of European Constitutional Review’, in Mads Andenæs, Tarjej Bekkedal and Luca Pantaleo (eds) The Reach of Free Movement, T.M.C. Asser Press.

Michailidou, Asimina, ‘Mirroring or Setting the Political Agenda? The Role of the Media in the Eurosceptic Debate’, in Benjamin Leruth, Nicholas Startin and Simon Usherwood (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Euroscepticism, Routledge.

Sjursen, Helene, ‘Enlargement and identity: studying reasons’, in Haakon A. Ikonomou, Aurélie Andry and Rebekka Byberg (eds) European Enlargement across Rounds and Beyond Borders, Routledge.

— ‘The EU’s Principles in World Politics’, in Christopher Hill, Michael Smith and Sophie Vanhoonacker (eds) International Relations and the European Union, Oxford University Press.

Trenz, Hans-Jörg, ‘Euroscepticism as EU Polity Contestation’, in Benjamin Leruth, Nicholas Startin and Simon Usherwood (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Euroscepticism, Routledge.

Trenz, Hans-Jörg and Charlotte Galpin, ‘The Spiral of Euroscepticism: Media Negativity, Framing and Opposition to the EU’, in Manuela Caiani and Simona Guerra (eds) Euroscepticism, Democracy and the Media: Communicating Europe, Contesting Europe, Palgrave Macmillan.

Trondal, Jarle, ‘Bureaucratic Structure’, in Ali Farazmand (ed.) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance 2017, Springer.

— ‘Public Administration of the European Union’, in William R. Thompson (ed.) The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, Oxford University Press.

Trondal, Jarle and Anchrit Wille, ‘The European Ombudsman: a resilient institution in a turbulent, evolving administrative order’, in Herwig C.H. Hofmann and Jacques Ziller (eds) Accountability in the EU, Edward Elgar Publishing.

31Publications

Publications 2012–20172013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Monographs 1 4 1 2 2

Edited books 4 5 6 1 4Special issues of journals 0 0 2 2 2Book chapters 16 47 37 17 30Journal articles 30 21 39 30 30ARENA Working Papers 8 13 5 5 11ARENA Reports 1 2 4 3 4Publication points (total)* 49.7 70.0 81.5 58.7 81.1Publication points (per academic person-year) 2.5 4.1 5.1 3.6 3.7

*Note that the numbers for 2015 and onwards are not directly comparable with previous years due to the introduction of a new publication indicator. The new calculation of publication point results in higher scores for co-authorship and international cooperation.

32 Publications

17/01 Erik O. EriksenThree conceptions of global political justice

17/02 Agustín J. Menéndez The guardianship of European constitutionality

17/03 Christopher Lord Fragmentation, segmentation and centre formation

17/04 Erik O. Eriksen Structural injustice and solidarity: the case of the Eurozone crisis

17/05 Marianne Riddervold and Ruxandra-Laura Bosilca Not so humanitarian after all? Assessing EU naval mission Sophia

17/06 Helene Sjursen Global justice and foreign policy. The Case of the European Union.

17/07 Michael A. Wilkinson Constitutional pluralism: chronicle of a death foretold?

17/08 Johan P. Olsen Democratic accountability and the changing European political order

17/09 Kjartan Koch Mikalsen Equal sovereignty: on the conditions of global political justice

17/10 Mai’a K. Davis Cross EU institutions and the drive for peace: the power of ideas

17/11 Mai’a K. Davis Cross Europe’s foreign policy and the nature of secrecy

ARENA Working PapersThe ARENA Working Paper Series publishes pre-print manuscripts by ARENA researchers or from external researchers presenting their research at ARENA seminars.

33Publications

The ARENA Report Series consists of proceedings from workshops or conferences, project reports, PhD dissertations and Master theses supervised at ARENA.

ARENA Reports

Gender balance in European corporate boards: A case study of gender equality policy in the EUARENA Report 1/17Erle Inderhaug

In this paper, the author studies the political process of a proposal for a EU directive to improve gender balance in European corporate boards. The directive was proposed by the European Commission in 2012 and was adopted in the European Parliament, but has been on hold in the Council of Ministers. The problem discussed in this report is two-fold. Firstly, what characterises the political process of this proposed directive, and secondly, why has the directive not been adopted.

The data for this report were obtained through semi-structured interviews with decision-makers who were part of the political process, in addition to written material from various EU institutions and news articles.

The background for this report is an article by Bergqvist, Bjarnegård and Zetterberg (2013) where they call for more studies of failed attempts to adopt gender equality policies. They indicate a bias in the research field, where there is an overweight of what

they refer to as successful cases, i.e. cases where gender equality policy reforms have been adopted. Bergqvist and others argue that one cannot know with certainty why some reforms successfully get adopted without studying cases where such proposals are not successful. By studying unsuccessful cases, one can produce new explanations and nuance or confirm established knowledge, and thus improve the research field.

Previous research on political processes in EU gender equality policy emphasises a combination of features, especially the political opportunity structure, stakeholders in velvet triangles and framing, in order to explain how gender equality policy proposals succeed. These factors have also been present in the case investigated in this report. Yet, the directive has not been adopted. Thus, this report argues that these factors are necessary, rather than sufficient, for the successful adoption of gender equality policy in the EU. In this case, the EU Council appears to be the major obstacle to the proposed directive. In future studies of successful cases, one should more closely investigate the factors that contribute to the successful adoption of proposals in the Council.

34

The European migration system and global justiceARENA Report 2/17 (GLOBUS report 1)Enrico Fassi and Sonia Lucarelli

This report is published as part of the GLOBUS project’s research on migration and global justice and provides a preliminary insight into the EU’s migration policies by examining concepts and understandings as well as actual applications in a set of national cases.

Migration is at the heart of the current political debate in Europe. Moreover, the migration crisis has disclosed a number of normative and ethical issues connected to the current management of migration in the EU. This report provides a preliminary insight into the EU’s policy on migration. It looks specifically at the terms the EU chooses, the definitions it devises and the concepts and understandings it endorses in its migration policies.

In order to grasp the actual working of an emerging EU Migration System of Governance (EUMSG), the same terms, concepts and definitions are also examined with reference to a set of national cases: Italy, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Hungary, Greece and Norway.

The impact of EU policy-making on asylum outcomesARENA Report 3/17Stein Arne Brekke

In this report, the author analyses the effects of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) on national asylum procedures. He presents a thorough quantitative study of the convergence of European asylum recognition rates.

In October 1999, the European Council agreed in Tampere to work towards the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice at a European level. Among other measures, the Tampere Council

Publications

35

discussed the creation of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS). One of the main goals of the CEAS was to ensure that all EU member states protected the rights of asylum seekers and refugees. Since 1999, the EU has adopted several legislative measures, aimed at harmonising common minimum standards for processing and deciding asylum applications. Yet, it is still an open question whether these measures have been successful. By providing a thorough quantitative study of the convergence of European asylum recognition rates, this report sets out to measure the effect of EU efforts on the harmonisation of national asylum policies. It finds indications that national recognition rates converge as a result of national EU policies in the field of asylum, and thus provides a less pessimistic view of the effect of the EU’s efforts than previous studies.

Failing forward towards reduced instability?ARENA Report 4/17Eirik Tegle Stenstad

In this report, the author aims to uncover the decision-making logic behind the evolution of the EU financial stability framework.

Since 2000, the financial stability framework of the EU has gone through major changes. Both the financial crisis (2008-2009) and the European debt crisis (2009-) triggered reforms. This report primarily contributes to the study of the political foundations of

financial stability and it aims to uncover the decision-making logic behind the evolution of the EU financial stability framework. It uncovers why EU Member States tend mostly to agree on piecemeal institutional reforms that may in fact increase vulnerabilities by not sufficiently addressing the underlying problems of financial instability. The report finds that decision-makers might not fully understand the risk of piecemeal reforms. The evolution of the EU financial stability framework demonstrates that policy learning is lagging real economic problems also when it is problem- and crisis-driven, and that the weaknesses of intergovernmental bargains become more prominent in times of crises.

Publications

36 Publications

The TARN working paper seriesThe working paper series of the TARN network on agencification of EU governance is issued by ARENA. The series editors Morten Egeberg and Jarle Trondal (ARENA) work closely with the editorial board, which consists of Giacinto della Cananea, Michelle Everson, Johannes Pollak and Ellen Vos.

The series published 16 papers in 2017:

17/1 Paul WeismannThe European Central Bank (ECB) under the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM): its functioning and its limits

17/2 Sara PernušOpening the black box of participation in the institutional practice of European agencies

17/3Marta Božina BerošSome reflections on the governance and accountability of the Single Resolution Board

17/5Florin Coman-KundThe international dimension of the EU agencies: charting a legal-institutional ‘twilight zone’

17/6Marta MiglioratiThe Commission as a network orchestrator in EU multi-level governance? The case of the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL)

37Publications

17/7Daniëlle van OschAccountability in the context of transgovernmental networks: a conceptual approach

17/8Aneta B. SpendzharovaBecoming a powerful regulator: the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in European financial sector governance

17/9Bernando RangoniRegulation after agencification: hierarchy and uncertainty in the case of energy

17/10Emmanuelle MathieuNetworks, committees or agencies? The many faces of the EU regulatory space

17/11Merijn Chamon and Valerie DemedtsConstitutional limits to the EU agencies’ external relations

12/17Maurizia de BellisProcedural rule-making of European Supervisory Agencies (ESAs): an effective tool for legitimacy?

17/13Marco IngleseThe external projection of EU’s agencies: an emphasis on the Ombudsman’s role

17/14Dovile Rimkute and Karina ShyrokykhThe role of EU agencies in the acquis transfer: the case of the European neighbourhood policy countries

17/15Helena EkelundNormative power FRONTEX? Assessing agency cooperation with third countries

17/16Vittoria MeissnerThe European Border and Coast Guard Agency Frontex beyond borders: the effect of the agency’s external dimension

38

The GLOBUS research paper seriesThe GLOBUS Research Papers are pre-print scientific articles on the EU’s contribution to global justice as well as the wider question of global political justice. The series is multidisciplinary, with a particular emphasis on the fields of international relations, political science, political theory, sociology and law.

The series editor is Helene Sjursen (ARENA). She works closely with the editorial board, which consists of Mai’a K. Davis Cross, Thomas Diez, Erik O. Eriksen, Sonia Lucarelli, Pundy Pillay and Ben Tonra.

The series published 6 papers in 2017:

17/1 Franziskus von LuckeO justice, where art thou? Developing a new take on climate justice

17/2 Helene SjursenGlobal justice and foreign policy: the case of the European Union

17/3Kjartan Koch MikalsenEqual sovereignty: on the conditions of global political justice

17/4Mai’a K. Davis CrossEU institutions and the drive for peace: the power of ideas

17/5Bettina AhrensThe solidarisation of international society: the EU and the global climate change regime

17/6Mai’a K. Davis CrossEurope’s foreign policy and the nature of secrecy

Publications

Events

40 Events

PLATO launched in Oslo The EU’s legitimacy in the wake of the finan-cial crisis was discussed by an international group of researchers when ARENA launched its Horizon 2020 PhD network PLATO in Oslo Science Park.

‘The Post-Crisis Legitimacy of the European Union’ (PLATO) is an innovative PhD training programme which brings together nine partner universities across Europe as well as eleven training partners from outside academia. At the kick-off conference 14-20 October, the project’s team of 15 early stage researchers, who had recently been recruited, met for the first time for academic discussions and networking within the PhD group as well as with supervisors, peers, and training partners representing think tanks and civil society.

Relevance written all over itThe topic that PLATO studies is of great importance to Europe and to the EU, the University of Oslo’s Vice-Rector for research and internationalisation Åse Gornitzka said in her welcome speech. PLATO has relevance written all over it, and in its shape and innovativeness, PLATO is also of great interest to the University of Oslo, she continued, referring to the project’s international collaboration and its novel and ambitious PhD training programme complementing traditional academic training with contributions and work experience from other sectors.

What is a legitimacy crisis? PLATO coordinator Chris Lord from ARENA intro-duced the project’s overall framework, and opened a broader reflection on legitimacy questions and stand-ards between the 15 PhD researchers and their peers.

What is a legitimacy or legitimation crisis as opposed to a mere legitimacy problem? Which conditions must be met for the EU to be directly legitimate with its citizens, or indirectly legitimate via each of its 27 member state democracies? What kind of legitimacy standards are we looking for: ideal or non-ideal standards or necessary or sufficient conditions? How could the EU meet demands of input, output, and throughput legitimacy?

The conference moved on to presentations and discussions of the 15 individual PhD projects. They all speak to the same overall research question, but explore different aspects of the EU’s legitimacy after the financial crisis, how it plays out in different policy areas and how it is perceived by different actors. The projects deal with popular understandings of crisis responses and voting behaviour, populism and corruption, the politics of courts and law, interest groups, parliamentary involvement and inter- institutional conflicts, migration and border controls, banking union and the EU emissions trading system, identity, citizens’ trust and the public sphere.

The 50 conference participants also met for a speed-dating session, giving PhD researchers, schol-ars and training partners an opportunity to network.

41Events

The 15 recruited PhD researchers The PhD researchers, three of whom started at ARENA in September, have 15 different nationalities and are employed in nine countries. They are a strong group with complementary backgrounds, including political science, political economy, law, philosophy, sociology, journalism, and languages. The 15 enjoyed a variety of team-building activities in the days leading up to the academic conference, in order to prepare the ground for them to work together as a team, exploring intellectually challenging research questions from different perspectives and disciplines.

Getting started in research PLATO’s training partner Vitae, the global leader in professional researcher development, led two

sessions. One day was dedicated to professional development planning, focusing on team work, collaboration and creativity. The PhDs reflected on priorities, goals and actions of a PhD and the knowledge, skills and attributes needed to get started in research. PhD researchers and supervisors also discussed the supervisory relationship within PLATO’s team-PhD context, confirming that expectations of the supervisors and supervisees may differ. It is useful to have a joint understanding on what to expect from the supervisor relationship from the outset, and PLATO’s Supervision Charter allows researchers and supervisors to get off to the best start in their research and their relationships.

Read more on www.plato.uio.no and pp. 6-7.

Left: Speed-dating; right: PLATO Coordinator Chris Lord and the 15 PhD researchers exploring questions of EU legitimacy

42

The REFLEX project on the legitimacy of depoliticised decision-making organised its first workshop in Oslo on 16-17 November. ARENA’s research project REFLEX examines the tensions between knowledge and democracy in the European context of decision-making and pursues the idea of reflexive legitimacy. The project’s first workshop gathered a group of researchers to discuss expertise and democracy in non-majoritarian institutions, among them lawyers, philosophers and political scientists, to provide their take on the functioning, justification and democratic embedding of so-called non-majoritarian institutions.

Non-majoritarian institutions A non-majoritarian institution can take many different forms. Independent central banks that set interest rates and make other monetary decisions without the involvement of elected politicians may be the best example. Another example would be agencies. These are structurally detached government organisations that are at an arm’s length from elected politicians, performing tasks ranging from food safety and aviation security to defence cooperation and border control.

Democratic legitimacy of expert bodiesARENA’s John Erik Fossum chaired the first session of the workshop, where the democratic legitimacy of expertise and expert bodies

were discussed. The second section on expert accountability and governance was chaired by Asimina Michailidou (ARENA). In this section, ARENA’s Alexander Katsaitis presented a study of parliamentary hearings under the 6th and 7th European Parliament legislature. He argued that there was a distinct shift in behaviour between these legislatures – the Parliament’s ECON committee has increased its amount of public hearings manifold while decreasing its interactions with national parliaments. This could, in the wake of the financial crisis, be an attempt to increase the Parliament’s democratic legitimacy.

The authority of expertiseKatsaitis chaired the third session, where the authority of expertise was discussed. Project coordinator Erik O. Eriksen presented a broader framework for thinking about non-majoritarian institutions. He walked through different strategies for holding experts accountable and pointed out how the existing alternatives fail. Eriksen then proposed his own alternative, the epistemic public strategy, in which experts are analysed not as value-free and neutral, but rather as representatives of different interests.

Engaging experts in politicsHelene Sjursen chaired the fourth session on engaging experts in politics. Andreas Eriksen

Events

The legitimacy of depoliticised decision-making

43Events

REFLEX workshop participants Andreas Eriksen (ARENA) presenting his paper

described different models of expert legitimacy and presented his own model, labelled the public reason model. Eva Krick discussed institutional innovations of coupling experts, civil society and the government in processes of policy development.

Many other ARENA researchers participated as commentators, including Cathrine Holst and Guri Rosén.

Other participants included Michelle Everson (University of London), Jonathan Kuyper (University of Oslo), Marija Bartl (University of Amsterdam), Mira Scholten (University of Utrecht), Anders Molander (Oslo University College/OsloMet), Torbjørn Gundersen (Oslo University College/OsloMet) and Matthew Wood (University of

Sheffield). The REFLEX project is funded by the Research

Council of Norway’s FRIPRO top research scheme and the University of Oslo (see pp. 8-9).

44

GLOBUS researchers gathered in Oslo on 19 and 20 January to discuss how to make sense of the EU’s contribution – if any – to a rightful world order.

Three conceptions of global justiceThe workshop connected the study of the European Union with the broader theoretical debate on global justice. GLOBUS coordinator Helene Sjursen (ARENA) invited political theorists and international relations scholars to present and discuss papers relating to the GLOBUS conceptual scheme. The scheme delineates three conceptions of global justice: justice as non-domination, impartiality and mutual recognition.

How should one understand GLOBUS’ three conceptions of global justice, and to what extent do they adequately capture the normative and practical dilemmas that arise beyond state borders? The participants paid particular attention to the European Union: how can the three conceptions of global justice be specified and developed as analytical tools to study the EU’s global role?

ARENA’s Erik O. Eriksen kicked off the workshop by presenting his paper ‘Three conceptions of global political justice’, which served as a focal point for the entire workshop. Alexa Zellentin (University College Dublin) picked up the three conceptions as they relate to climate justice. Pundy

Pillay (Wits University) commented on global justice from a southern African perspective by presenting his paper ‘Trade, development and social justice in Africa’. Chris Lord (ARENA) elaborated on the issue of historical responsibility by asking the question: when are nations responsible for things they have done in the past?

Justice and foreign policyGLOBUS coordinator Helene Sjursen (ARENA) launched the next session with a presentation of justice and foreign policy as it pertains to the EU. Moving to the issue of migration, Sonia Lucarelli and Michela Ceccorulli (University of Bologna) presented an analysis of European definitions of migration and their implications for global justice. Finally, Kjartan Koch Mikalsen (NTNU and ARENA) provided a philosopher’s perspective defending a pure functionalist theory of territorial jurisdiction.

Princeton researcher Barbara Buckinx presented a paper on burden sharing and the refugee crisis, and, among other things, reminded us that the burden for hosting refugees in today’s global system falls squarely on the shoulders of developing countries. Silje Langvatn (University of Oslo) provided yet another philosophical take in her paper on Rawls’ late political liberalism and its relevance for global justice. Lars Blichner (University of Bergen) elaborated the concept of justice as mutual

Events

Conceptualising global justice

45

recognition and its relation to law.

Security and diplomacyNikola Tomic and Ben Tonra (University College Dublin) presented a comparative analysis of the EU’s security strategies. Mai’a K. Davis Cross (ARENA) elaborated on how the EU has ramped up its climate diplomacy efforts. Finally, Thomas Diez (University of Tübingen) presented the paper ‘Two dimensions of global justice claims’ emphasising the need to take in both states and individuals as referent objects of justice. Other ARENA researchers contributed with comments to the papers, including John Erik Fossum and Espen D.H. Olsen.

Events

The workshop was organised by ARENA as a part of the GLOBUS project, which brings together eight partner universities across the world to critically examine the EU’s contributions to global justice (see pp. 4-5).

Left: GLOBUS workshop participants; right: Nikola Tomic (picture) discussed the EU’s security strategies

46

Over 2,000 scholars from more than 45 countries gathered in Oslo for the 11th ECPR General Conference on 6-9 September. ARENA’s Johan P. Olsen was given the honour of holding the Plenary Lecture.

During the event, some 1,856 papers were presented across 444 panels and 72 sections. ARENA staff organised several of these and contributed with numerous papers.

Keynote lecture by Johan P. OlsenProfessor emeritus and founder of ARENA Johan P. Olsen was given the honor of holding the plenary lecture of the ECPR in the University Aula of the University of Oslo. In the lecture, Olsen spoke about democratic accountability and the changing European political order. Ongoing transformations of the political organisation of Europe, where both the nation-state and the European Union are challenged, make it possible to explore phenomena that are difficult to see in more stable periods. The upsurge of accountability demands, where political leaders are required to explain and justify what they are doing and not doing, is one such phenomena. Assuming stable principal-agent relations may give insight into the routines of institutional accountability. But Olsen argued that it is not enough to analyse how accountability processes contribute to routinised maintenance of an established order within relatively

stable, simple, and well-known situations. We also need to understand accountability in eras of institutional confusion and contestation and in dynamic, complex, and unknown situations.

Transparency, accountability, representation ARENA’s Guri Rosén chaired a section on modern representative democracies and delegated processes that take place behind closed doors. In this section, the panels discussed how these processes remove policy-making and control procedures as well as essential deliberations from the public realm, in addition to deliberate on ways to reconcile representation, accountability and transparency. Rosén also presented a paper on transparency in the EU and ARENA’s Cathrine Holst, Åse Gornitzka, Stine Hesstvedt and Eva Krick presented papers in the panel on expertisation of policy advice.

The crisis and the future of Europe Espen D.H. Olsen and John Erik Fossum chaired a section on the crises and the future of Europe. It consisted of five panels covering issues such as the Eurozone crisis, the migration crisis and Brexit. Fossum chaired the panel on the possible EU trajectories of the crises, where Erik O. Eriksen (ARENA), among others, presented a paper on differentiated integration and arbitrary rule. Olsen chaired a panel on the EU migration crisis, where he also presented a paper on renationalisation of Europe

Events

ECPR General Conference in Oslo

47

in the migration crisis.

The politics of multi-level administrationHow does the structure and staff composition of the EU administration’s executive branch affect (multi-level) governance processes? That was one of the questions asked in the panel on the politics of EU multi-level administration chaired by Jarle Trondal and Morten Egeberg (both ARENA).

Broad range of ARENA researchSeveral other ARENA researchers participated in

the conference, presenting papers or chairing panels on a broad range of topics

For example, Marianne Riddervold presented at paper on how the EU and the United States

Events

respond to rising powers making territorial claims, with a special focus on transatlantic unity and dissent. Hans-Jörg Trenz presented a paper on how EU citizenship is defended and contested online during Brexit, while Asimina Michailidou presented a paper on the digital movement of opinion in the case of the social media campaign #RefugeesWelcome. Furthermore, Helena Seibicke took part in a panel that explored gendered variations in elite career paths, with a special focus on comparing women and men across political jurisdictions and countries.

Numerous ARENA papers presented at the ECPR General Conference have later been submitted for review and accepted for publication in international journals.

The University of Oslo hosted the ECPR General Conference, which gathered over 2,000 scholars from more than 45 countries

48 Events

On 9 June, ARENA organised a book launch for Professor Emeritus and founding director of ARENA Johan P. Olsen’s latest book ‘Democratic Accountability, Political Order, and Change’.

In the book, Johan P. Olsen explores accountability processes in the context of European transformation. He examines democratic accountability as a mechanism by which citizens are supposed to influence and control their elected representatives, non-elected officials, and other power holders.

Ongoing transformations of the political organisation of Europe, where both the nation-state and the European Union are challenged, make it possible to explore phenomena that are difficult to see in stable periods. The aim of this book is to contribute to the theorisation of democratic accountability and to discuss what accountability processes tell us about political order and orderly change in general.

Per Lægreid (University of Bergen) and Ragnar Lie (former Administrative Director of ARENA) participated in the event with comments and reflections.

Book launch: Democratic Accountability, Political Order and Change

Johan P. Olsen presenting the ECPR 2017 plenary lecture. Olsen’s lecture was inspired by his new book ‘Democratic Accountability, Political Order and Change’

49Events

ARENA convened a workshop on European citizenship in light of the refugee crisis on 13 January.

The refugee crisis is the latest in a series of crises that have hit Europe and the EU. Often considered to be a crisis of institutions and management, it is also a crisis of real people ‘on the ground’, both citizens and refugees alike. At the same time, the member states of the EU have experienced a surge in calls for ‘renationalisation’ and a move back to more pronounced notions of national citizenship. The handling of the Eurocrisis and the reforms of national economies that followed in its wake have revealed a crisis of representation and increased discontent with politics ‘beyond the nation-state’. Once seen as part of the democratic solution, European citizenship is now increasingly seen as a part of the problem.

Under the title ‘Who is the European citizen? Who is the refugee? Personal statuses between globalisation, Europeanisation and the refugee crisis’ this workshop critically discussed the current relationship between citizenship and European integration.

The participants addressed two sets of inter-related challenges. The first set of interventions probed and critically discussed how European integration has made an impact on conceptions of citizenship in a political and legal sense. The second set of interventions drew attention to how the

conceptualisation of European citizenship has made an impact on the definition of the other personal statuses in European law, with a particular emphasis on the definition of European and national asylum policy.

Agustín J. Menéndez and Espen D.H. Olsen from ARENA organised the workshop, which brought

together scholars from different institutions and disciplines. John Erik Fossum chaired the first session of the workshop, which opened with a discussion on European citizenship by Olsen and Menéndez. Hans-Jörg Trenz from ARENA presented the effects of Brexit on European citizenship, while Cathrine Holst led the debate of the second session. Other participants included Catherine Colliot-Thélène (Université de Rennes 1), Sandra Mantu (Radboud University), Mads Andenæs (University of Oslo), Stefanie Pukallus (University of Sheffield), Catherine Withol de Wenden (CNRS) and Massimo La Torre (University ‘Magna Graecia’ di Catanzaro).

The workshop was a part of ARENA’s research project EuroDiv, which examines the implication of the current European crisis for democracy and integration in a long-term perspective (see pp. 2-3).

Who is the European citizen and who is the refugee?

50

Hans-Jörg Trenz and Bo Stråth presented the main conclusions of their new books on Europe’s past and present at a EuroDiv seminar on 4 April.

Europe’s history exhibits a profound tension of unity and diversity. Efforts at unification have been met with staunch displays of defence of diversity. The various projects have unfolded during periods of peace and war. Today’s Europe has seen an almost unprecedented period of peace coupled with a continent-wide effort to integrate driven by the EU. At present, confronted with a panoply of crises, the EU faces serious questions about its continued existence. The purpose of this seminar was to discuss Europe’s present with reference to two important new books. The first book by Bo Stråth (University of Helsinki) provides a historical backdrop to the present by discussing Europe’s efforts at developing lasting peace since the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The second book by Hans-Jörg Trenz (ARENA) provides an up-to-date assessment of Europe. How well-entrenched in Europe’s societies is the process of Europeanisation? What kind of process is this?

Both books underline the role of historical contingency and the need to understand the available options as perceived by different actors at different points in time. The book presentations were followed by comments from John-Erik Fossum (ARENA), Ellen Krefting (UiO) and Dag Michalsen (UiO).

Towards a differentiated EuropeARENA’s Erik O. Eriksen and John Erik Fossum organised the EuroDiv Conference ‘Towards a differentiated Europe’ in Oslo on 18-19 May.

The UK’s vote to leave the EU has put a new focus on differentiation and alternative forms of partnership with the EU onto the political and academic agenda. Which concepts of close cooperation do exist beyond membership? Have existing models proven themselves? How are the EU’s semi-integrated neighbours affected by the current developments?

The conference gathered both senior scholars and up-and-coming academics from diverse backgrounds to Oslo. Several researchers from ARENA participated in the panel discussions: Erik O. Eriksen contributed in a panel on the internal dynamics of the EU, John Erik Fossum and Espen D.H. Olsen participated in a panel on different models of partnership with the EU and Helene Sjursen took part in a panel on the future of Norway-EU relations.

The conference was jointly organised by COMOS, CETEUS and ARENA as a part of the EuroDiv project (see pp. 2-3) and aimed to shed light on the current political developments and academic debates. Elsbeth Tronstad, the Norwegian State Secretary of EEA and EU Affairs and prominent scholar Wolfgang Wessels (University of Cologne) gave the two keynote speeches.

Book Discussion: Quo Vadis Europa? Reflections on Europe’s Past and Present

Events

51

The new politics of EU external relationsOn 9-10 March, ARENA’s Guri Rosén hosted an international workshop at the University of Gothenburg’s Centre for European Research (CERGU).

The Lisbon Treaty triggered a small revolution in the field of EU external relations by giving the European Parliament the power to veto international agreements. To date, it has done so on three occasions, with SWIFT in 2010, on the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Morocco and with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in 2012. Focusing on the negotiation of international agreements, the main ambition of this workshop was to analyse how these processes of parliamentarisation and politicisation affect the EUs external relations.

A total of 11 papers were presented and discussed over two days. In addition to organising the workshop, Rosén also presented her paper ‘To protect or to serve? How MEPs respond to trade politicization’.

University College Dublin and London School of Economics organised the third and final workshop and network meeting in the ANTERO Jean Monnet (ERASMUS+) network on EU foreign policy on 31 May-2 June.

This final workshop included research panels on the effectiveness and coherence of EU foreign, security and defence policies, as well as panels devoted to teaching in EU foreign policy. The workshop was organised by ANTERO coordinator Ben Tonra (University College Dublin). Johanna Strikwerda (ARENA) participated in a panel on whether security can cause ineffectiveness and incoherence with her paper ‘The implementation of the Defence and Security Procurement Directive’.

The goal of the ANTERO Network has been to strengthen the interaction between research in the field of EU foreign policy and the translation of that research through innovative, research-led teaching (see pp. 14-15). Therefore, the workshop also included a public policy roundtable on how practitioners and academics can better collaborate to explain and understand EU foreign, security and defence policy.

Events

Final workshop in the ANTERO network on EU foreign policy

52

GLOBUS researchers chaired the section ‘The European Union: Promoting or obstructing global justice’ at the EISA conference on International Relations in Barcelona, 13-16 September.

In the context of intensified globalisation and economic integration, there is increasing recognition that the settlement of justice claims cannot be confined to domestic political settings. Yet, the concept of justice is contested. To the extent that the EU contributes to enhance global justice, what conception of justice does it rely upon and to what extent is this conception echoed by state and non-state actors outside of Europe?

The section engaged with theoretical debates on global political justice through analyses of the EU’s global role. There was considerable interest for the call for papers for this section, which consisted of eight panels with participation from both GLOBUS researchers and researchers from the wider scholarly community.

GLOBUS coordinator Helene Sjursen (ARENA) convened the section along with Ben Tonra (University College Dublin). Sjursen also chaired a panel on global justice and European security and presented a paper on justice in foreign policy. ARENA researcher Johanne Døhlie Saltnes presented the paper ‘Conceptions of justice in the EU’s trade and development policies’.

The EU: Promoting or obstructing global justice?

GLOBUS study tour to IndiaThe GLOBUS partner O.P. Jindal Global University hosted GLOBUS researchers for a week-long visit on 5-11 November.

GLOBUS researchers met with policy-makers, civil society and other stakeholders during the study tour to India. The researchers took part in a workshop with colleagues at JGU, the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, and the Embassy of the European Union to India, among others. They also met representatives from the Indian Council of World Affairs, Research and Information System for Developing Countries, the Foreign Service Institute, the Energy and Resources Institute, and the National Human Rights Commission, as well as prominent ministerial officials and civil society representatives.

As a result of this trip, researchers achieved a better understanding of how Indian policy-makers see their country’s role in the world as well as its relationship to the EU. Discussions centred on various aspects of India’s conception of world politics, especially how leaders, policymakers, and NGOs define global justice from an Indian perspective.The trip contributed with valuable insights into all of the specific research projects of the GLOBUS consortium, including in areas of climate change, migration, gender, trade, and security. This was the first in a series of four international study trips planned for GLOBUS.

Events

53Events

Left: The GLOBUS team meeting Indian policy-makers; right: Michela Ceccorulli at the GLOBUS migration workshop

Migration and global justiceGLOBUS researchers from ARENA and the University of Bologna gathered in Oslo for a seminar on migration and justice on 15 December.

GLOBUS coordinator Helene Sjursen (ARENA) chaired the seminar and gave a presentation on empirical indicators for three conceptions of global justice.

Michela Ceccorulli from the University of Bologna presented a paper on the reform of the asylum system in the EU, arguing that the reformed Common European Asylum System might worsen the protection of rights in certain member states.

Espen D. H. Olsen from ARENA presented a paper on Norway’s approach to migration and asylum as a non-EU state. Norway sees its migration system as fair and just. But how just is it really, Olsen asked.

Kjartan Kock Mikalsen (NTNU) and Andreas Eriksen (ARENA) participated as discussants.

54

ARENA Tuesday seminars

24 January 2017What’s wrong with the Euro and how to fix it

Erik Jones, Johns Hopkins University

28 February 2017A ‘spiral of euroscepticism’? European Parliament elections, public contestation and media negativity in Germany and the UK

Charlotte Galpin and Hans-Jörg Trenz, University of Copenhagen and ARENA

28 March 2017European citizenship: an unhappy misunderstanding?

Espen D. H. Olsen, ARENA

25 April 2017Split vision: multidimensionality in the European Union’s legal policy space

Daniel Naurin, PluriCourts (University of Oslo)

2 May 2017Perceptions of the EU’s global energy governance in the light of the Paris Agreement on climate change

Michèle Knodt, Technische Universität Darmstadt

30 May 2017One EU civil service or many? The General Secretariat of the Council and the European Commission compared

Hussein Kassim and Sara Connolly, University of East Anglia

This Tuesday seminar was also a TARN lecture

13 June 2017Resistance to EU integration: accounting for like-minded reluctance to donor coordinatioon in EU development policy

Johanne Døhlie Saltnes, ARENA

At the ARENA Tuesday seminars, external scholars as well as ARENA’s own staff are invited to present and defend their work in an inspiring and rewarding academic environment.

Events

55Events

29 August 2017The whole and the parts: the demands of ‘unity in diversity’

Dimitris N. Chryssochoou, Panteion University

19 September 2017Cosmopolitan responsibility. Normative and empirical dimensions

Mitja Sienknecht, Berlin Social Science Center (WZB)

26 September 2017How are citizens’ judgments about international cooperation shaped? Experimental evidence from the Eastern periphery of Europe

Dimiter Toshov, Leiden University

31 October 2017Capacity, willingness, and sovereign default risk: reassuring the market in times of crisis

Jørgen Bølstad, ARENA

21 November 2017Expertisation of policy advice. Dynamics of the EU Commission’s high level groups

Åse Gornitzka and Eva Krick, ARENA

28 November 2017Responding to the public in the European Union: a process model of organizational mediatization

Pieter de Wilde, Norwegian University of Sciences and Technology (NTNU)

56 Events

ARENA organised a lecture with Hussein Kassim and Sara Connolly (University of East Anglia) as a part of the TARN lecture series on 30 May.

Hussein Kassim and Sara Connolly gave the presentation ‘One EU civil service or many? The General Secretariat of the Council and the European Commission compared’.

The paper presented describes the empirical findings of a statistical study comparing civil servants working at the European Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council. Formally, staff working for EU institutions are part of a single civil service, governed by the same rules, codes and procedures. Little is known, however, about the staff profile as a whole or in terms of individual parts of the EU civil service. Questions about the suitability of staff recruited and the subsequent alignment of their values with the principles of their workplace have so far been left unanswered. Kassim and Connolly found that despite EU administration staff’s similar backgrounds, their beliefs and values differ significantly. The data suggest that these differences result from socialisation after recruitment – that is, at the workplace.

The TARN lecture was organised as a part of the Jean Monnet network TARN with nine partners (see p. 14).

TARN lecture

Hussein Kassim and Sara Connolly giving a combined TARN lecture and Tuesday Seminar on 30 May

57

Other conferences and events

Events

Bølstad, Jørgen, ‘Not so similar after all? On non-convergence in the Eurozone’, Annual Conference of EPSA, Milan, 22-24 June.

Eriksen, Andreas, ‘Reclaiming responsibility’, Practical Philosophy Working Group, Annual Workshop 2017, Oslo, 16-17 November.

Eriksen, Erik Oddvar, ‘Lessons from the EU’s non-members’, LSE Lecture: The Brexit Alternatives and their Implications, London School of Economics (LSE), 27 November

Fossum, John Erik, ‘The European Council and the EU’s crises: a driver of core consolidation, a means of muddling through, or an instigator of fragmentation in Europe?’ SUMMIT Dissemination Conference: The European Council. Spreading knowledge and fostering research, University of Cologne, 16-17 January

— ‘Are the lessons of the EEA relevant to Brexit’, the conference Norway in Europe, University of Oslo, 18 September

— ‘Nordic populism’, the workshop The New Populist Right and Europe: Visions and Divisions, University of Copenhagen, 29 November

Holst, Cathrine, ‘Scandianvian feminism and gender partnership’, Global Challenges - Nordic Experiences conference, University of Oslo, 20-21 March

— ‘Advisory commissions, academic knowledge and democratic legitimacy’, Instituttseminaret, Oslo, 24 March

— ‘Varieties of Normative Inquiry’, a comment to Andrew Abbott’s lecture Varieties of Normative Inquiry, University of Oslo, 8 May

— ‘Forholdet mellom vitenskap og normer’, Kvalitativt metodeforum, Oslo, 10 May

— ‘Advisory commissions, academic knowledge, and democratic legitimacy: a Nordic case’, Workshop on democracy, populism and technocracy, Larvik, 5-7 October

— ‘Epistocracy and non-ideal theory. Unpacking the relationship between ideal and non-ideal theory’, Berlin, 8-10 November

— Comments to lecture by Hanspieter Kriesi, Institutional Change in Democratic Societies, Oslo, 23 November

ARENA’s staff organised and chaired panels and workshops as part of international academic conferences, in addition to giving invited lectures and academic papers at events organised by a range of research projects, networks and academic institutions.

58 Events

Holst, Cathrine and Christensen, Johan, ‘The role of academic knowledge in Norwegian think tanks’, CERGU Workshop on Think Tanks in Europe, University of Gothenburg, 20-22 September

Katsaitis, Alexander, ‘Politicization across the European Parliament’s Policy Domains’, 11th Max Weber Fellows’ June Conference, European University Institute, Badia, 7-9 June

Katsaitis, Alexander and Coen, David, ‘The Inner Circle? Interest Groups & Committee Hearings in the European Parliament. Throughput Legitimacy’, Workshop on throughput legitimacy, KFG - Freie Universität Berlin, 28-29 June

Katsaitis, Alexander, David Coen and Wilhelm Lehmann, ‘How the Policy Conveyor Belt Impacts Interest Group Access: Diverse Lobbying Across the European Parliament’s Policy Cycle’, EUSA Fifteenth Biennial Conference, Miami, 4-6 May

Krick, Eva, ‘Quality criteria for non-scientific policy expertise’, Science Studies Colloquium, Oslo, 15 February

Lord, Christopher, ‘Democratic Assessment and Illiberal Democracy’, the conference Illiberal Democracy? Poland in a Comparative perspective, University of Oxford, 3-4 March

— ‘Why there is no justification for parliaments playing a lesser role in external rather than internal decisions’, PACO Concluding Conference, Brussels, 31 August

Menéndez, Agustín J., ‘Wither the “New” Spain? Spanish Politics Between Constitutional Unsettlement, European Disintegration and Socio-Economic Crisis’, part of the Contemporary History and Institutions of the Mediterranean series, Johns Hopkins University, 24 April

— ‘Heller entre Weimar y Madrid. La Gramática del Estado democrático y social’. Laboratorio Weimar: La crisis de la primera globalización en Euroamérica, Complutense University of Madrid, 13 November

Mikalsen, Kjartan Koch, ‘The irrelevance of history: in defense of a pure functionalist theory of territorial jurisdiction’, Philosophy of Borders - nations, states and immigration, Budapest, 3-4 February

Olsen, Espen D. H., ‘What kind of crisis and whose crisis is it? Conceptual considerations on the European migration crisis’, EuroDiv workshop - The EU and its Crises: from resilient ambiguity to ambiguous resilience – or beyond? Bratislava, 20 April

59Events

Riddervold, Marianne and Newsome, Akasemi, ‘Handbook: EU crisis, resilience and the future of the Union’, the workshop Global Europe in times of uncertainty, 21-27 June

— ‘Introduction: US-EU Relations in times of Uncertainty: Crises and transatlantic relations’, the workshop Global Europe in times of uncertainty, 21-27 June

Rosén, Guri, ‘Session on Secrecy Dilemma: Parliamentary Oversight and Public Access to Information’, the seminar Transparency and Secrecy in Foreign Policy, Kristiansand, 16 March

— ‘From zero to hero? The European Parliament’s new role in EU External Relations’, the 2017 Spring Lecture Series Rebels With a Cause? Parliamentary Resilience in European and Global Governance, KU Leuven, 20 April

— ‘Proving Its Worth? Parliamentarisation of EU Trade Policy and Its Effects’, the 24th International Conference of Europeanists, Glasgow, 12-14 June

— ‘An Exceptional Cleavage? Trade Policy in the European Parliament’, American Political Science Association (APSA) Annual Meeting 2017, San Francisco, 31 August - 3 September

Erik O. Eriksen giving a lecture at LSE on 27 November Chris Lord discussing Brexit during the conference ‘Rebooting Europe’. Right: Kristin Haugevik (NUPI) and Anne Deighton

(University of Oxford)

60

Saltnes, Johanne Døhlie, ‘Case Study of Donor Coordination in EU Development Policy’, the GLOBUS workshop Trade, Development and Global Justice, Johannesburg, 30 May - 1 June

Schwarzkopf, Anke Stefanie, ‘Resistance to EU Power? The EU’s Status and Role in the United Nations’, Early-career Scholars’ workshop on EU-UN Relations, The Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI), 13 September

Sjursen, Helene, ‘The Capabilities-Expectations Gap in 2017’, symposium in Honour of Professor Christopher Hill, London School of Economics, 12 May

— Panel debate at the GLOBUS workshop Trade, Development and Global Justice, Johannesburg, 30 May - 1 June

Trenz, Hans-Jörg and Sukosd, Miklos, ‘The New Right and Europe’, introductory remarks at the workshop The New Populist Right and Europe: Visions and Divisions, University of Copenhagen, 29 November

Trondal, Jarle and Gänzle, Stefan, ‘The ECOWAS Commission and its impact on regional integration in Western Africa’, paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Conference, Baltimore, 22 February

Events

Outreach

62

Economists have a large impact on policy-making and there is no such thing as a neutral bureaucrat, Johan Christensen said when presenting his newest book on 22 May.

Johan Christensen (Leiden University) is together with Cathrine Holst (ARENA) the coordinator of the ARENA project ‘EUREX: Expertization of public inquiry commissions in a Europeanized administrative order’ (see pp. 10-11). In cooperation with Partnerforum, EUREX organised a book launch for Christensen’s monography ‘The Power of Economists Within the State’ (Stanford Uni. Press).

The seminar was closely related to the project’s central research question - the role of scientific expertise in the preparation of public policies - and gathered 200 participants from relevant sectors. Holst opened the seminar, followed by a presentation from Christensen and comments by two distinguished experts of economics and history, Einar Lie (UiO) and Ådne Cappelen (Statistics Norway).

Norway was the opposite of IrelandIn 2009 the financial crisis was raging. Ireland had been praised as an economic miracle, but was now one of the countries hit hardest by the crisis. What had gone wrong? In his book, Christensen examined and compared the influence of economists on tax policy in four countries: Ireland, Denmark, Norway, and New Zealand: ‘The Irish government

had stimulated the economy by cutting taxes for a long time’, Christensen explained. Furthermore, they also introduced a number of special deductions and exceptions. ‘The combination of lowering taxes and collecting them on an ever narrowing tax base meant that when the crisis hit and the economy didn’t grow by eight percent per year anymore, Ireland simply didn’t have the money to cover its expenses’.

Ireland’s tax policy was directly contrary to what was considered good tax policy. Norway, however, was the opposite after several reforms.

Anti-intellectual moodChristensen maintains that the difference in the influence of economists can explain the difference between the two countries: ‘In Ireland, the Ministry of Finance employed almost no economists. Only seven percent of the employees had a master’s degree or higher in economics – and only 30 percent had a master’s degree at all’, Christensen said.

An anti-intellectual mood prevailed in the Ministry. ‘It’s about getting the job done, not running around on conferences and presenting papers’, as one public servant put it, according to Christensen.

Historical circumstances decideIn Norway, however, economists have had much power over economic policy ever since WW2.Historical factors are partly to blame. Ireland imported a UK model where public servants are hired

The Power of Economists

Outreach

63Outreach

based on a central, general exam. This gives Ireland generalist bureaucrats who can work almost anywhere, at the expense of specialised experts. Norway practices local employment where you pick people for each individual position. Furthermore, the alliance between the Norwegian Labour Party and the dominant circle of economists at and around the University of Oslo gave economists a prominent role in the social democratic state constructed after WW2.

But does the role of economists determine who is in charge of tax policy? Christensen argues that the presence of economists affected the power balance between bureaucrats and politicians in three ways: through expertise, ideology, and norms.

Expertise‘Economists had academic, technical knowledge that politicians and other professionals didn’t necessarily have’, according to Christensen. ‘The economists were allowed to define the problem with existing tax policy – to them, the problem was efficiency’, Christensen said. ‘The tax system didn’t contribute to an efficient use of resources. And they were able to show this with various analyses of tax rates and their effects’.

In Norway, economic expertise gave the bureaucracy tools to stand up to politicians. In Ireland, by comparison, officials neglected to carry out even the most basic analyses, which allowed politicians to do as they pleased with the tax system.

IdeologyIdeology was also a crucial factor. To many economists, economic theory was in itself an important motivation to carry out reforms, said Christensen: ‘If expertise was the murder weapon, ideology was the motive’.

NormsFurthermore, there existed an idea about professionalism among economists, a strong identification as economists. This meant that economists were willing to be disobedient and step into the policy field – in stark contrast to the classic image of the neutral bureaucrat.

The Norwegian minister of finance Siv Jensen in a meeting with her civil servants (Photo: Lise Åserud / NTB Scanpix)

64

Rebooting Europe: A Europe in TransitionAbout a hundred participants from the government and academia participated in the Research Council of Norway’s annual ‘Europe conference’ on 1 December.

The world today is less stable than it has been in several decades. Brexit, migration, rising nationalism and an EU under increasing pressure make up-to-date, research based knowledge about our closest allies and cooperation partners more crucial than ever. Are we heading towards a new Europe? If so, what does this entail for Norway? These were among the questions asked at the conference attended by academics and bureaucrats, civil society, and the new Minister of EU and EEA Affairs Marit Berger Røsland.

The seminar was organised as part of the Research Council of Norway’s programme ‘Europe in Transition’ (EUROPA). Erik O. Eriksen is project leader for ARENA’s EuroDiv project (see pp. 2-3), which is funded by EUROPA.

The new Minister of EU and EEA Affairs announced that the program will be renewed, though under a new funding scheme.

Brexit, Norway and the EEAChris Lord took part in a discussion panel on Brexit together with Anne Deighton from the University of Oxford and Kristin Haugevik from NUPI. Lord focused on how the Brexit vote has only deepened

the political and social divisions within British society, arguing that Brexit is both a product of the breakdown in the British social and political system and a likely source of further crises within it.

Solidarity, Crisis and Global JusticeJarle Trondal gave a presentation on ‘Governance in Turbulent Times - Europe’s integrated administrative system’, based on his research where he explores how organisations and institutions respond to new and turbulent governance challenges.

Hans-Jörg Trenz gave a presentation on ‘European Solidarity in Times of Crisis’, with a special focus on migration, the refugee crisis and european integration.

Helene Sjursen gave the presentation ‘The EU - a Resource for Global Justice’, where she presented the preliminary findings of ARENA’s Horizon 2020 project ‘GLOBUS - Reconsidering European Contributions to Global Justice’. ARENA could develop this project largely thanks to the research of EuroDiv, funded by EUROPA.

Other topics covered at the seminar were the future of European integration by Ulf Sverdrup and the changes in European Foreign, Security and Defence policy by Pernille Rieker (both NUPI), migration policy by Jan-Paul Brekke (ISF), climate governance in the EU by Guri Bang (CICERO), and macroeconomics by Halvor Mehlum (UiO).

Outreach

65Outreach

The Global Justice BlogThe global justice blog is an academic commentary that is part of the GLOBUS project. The aim is to enhance debates on, and understandings of, global justice.

The blog is edited by ARENA’s Johanne Døhlie Saltnes. It posts contributions on topics ranging from the WTO and trade to climate change and gender equality:

Saltnes, Johanne Døhlie and Kjartan Koch Mikalsen, ‘Is the World Trade Organization unjust?’, 20 February 2017

Tonra, Ben, ‘Resilience and EU Foreign Policy: A promise of justice as mutual recognition?’, 1 March 2017

Holst, Cathrine, ‘A global setback for women’s rights?’, 9 March 2017

Ceccorulli, Michela, ‘The EU Global Strategy: The opportunity for self-reflection on “resilience”’, 3 April 2017

von Lucke, Franz, ‘Climate justice from Kyoto to Paris’, 9 June 2017

Gumede, William, ‘The International Criminal Court and Accountability in Africa’, 17 July 2017

Go to: globus.uio.no/blog

66 Outreach

Other outreach activitiesEriksen, Erik Oddvar, ‘Differensiert integrasjon og

demokratisk legitimitet i Europa’, Temadager om europapolitikk, Oslo, 24 November

Fossum, John Erik, ‘Brexit and the EEA’, Round-table briefing, Oslo, 19 October

Holst, Cathrine, ‘Rapport fra den digitale fronten’. Panel on Rapport fra den digitale fronten, 12 January

— ‘Committee Governance in Consensus Cultures’, Vinterseminaret, 3-5 February

— ‘Norsk Sosiologforenings Hederspris 2017 til Else Øyen’, Vinterseminaret, 3-5 February

— ‘Generasjonsstafetter i kjønnsforskningen: Et blikk på sosiologien’. Cathrine Holst in conversation with Karin Widerberg at the seminar Generasjonsstafetter i kjønnsforskningen: Hvem skal bære “arven” videre - og hvordan? University of Oslo, 9 February

— ‘Perspektiv på verket “Det norske samfunn”, panel discussion at the public event Sosiologien og samfunnet: Fra premissleverandør til marginalisering? Litteraturhuset, Oslo, 28 February

— ‘Forskning og politikkutvikling’, program seminar for KULMEDIA, Research Council of Norway, 16-17 March

— ‘Om kunnskapskilder i offentlig politikkutforming’, Skjervheimseminaret, Stalheim, 15-17 May

— ‘Den unge Marx’ ekspertifiseringskritikk’. Marx, rett og samfunn, University of Oslo, 9 June

— ‘Feminisme i sosiologien’, Fagkritisk dag, University of Oslo, 3 August

— ‘Ekspertenes inntog. “Stort skrik og lite ull”, public seminar Eilert Sundt og visjonane om kunnskapsbasert politikk, National Library of Norway, Oslo, 24 August

— ‘Kunnskapsbasert politikk?’ Agenda-akademiet, Oslo, 26-27 August

— ‘Feminisme - venstre - høyre’, Civita-akademiet, Oslo, 2-3 September

— ‘Politikk for likelønn’, seminar at Likestillings- og diskrimineringsombudet (the Norwegian equality and anti-discrimination ombudsman), Oslo, 5 September

— ‘Hvor stor makt har økonomene?’ the festival Økonomifestivalen, Stavanger, 2-3 November

— ‘Expertise and legitimacy’, PROLEG lunch, Bergen, 7 November

67Outreach

Media contributions As a centre for research on issues directly affecting European citizens, ARENA aims to reach out beyond the research community. The staff contribute to the public debate in print and broadcast media, commenting upon topical issues with research-based knowledge.

Op-edsEuropeisk integrasjon er vår tids franske revolusjon,

Erik O. Eriksen, Dagbladet, 23 January

Brexit blir en tøff affære, Erik O. Eriksen, NRK, 15 February

Folket og forskerne, Cathrine Holst, Minerva, 7 August

Demokrati på norsk – valgkamp og EU, Jarle Trondal and Nadja Kühn, Agderposten, 22 September

Ekspertene kommer, Cathrine Holst, Morgenbladet, 29 September

‘Revolusjonen som tapte sin røst’, John Erik Fossum and Øivind Bratberg, Samtiden. Tidsskrift for politikk, litteratur og samfunnsspørsmål 127(4), 22 November

Brexit – en norsk hodepine, Erik O. Eriksen, Dagens Perspektiv, 28 November

Nei, problemene er ikke løst, Erik O. Eriksen, NRK Ytring, 2 December

Folkeviljens fallitt?, John Erik Fossum and Øivind Bratberg, Dagsavisen, 4 December

Brexit – et kunnskapsproblem, Erik O. Eriksen, Dagens Næringsliv, 14 December

Erik O. Eriksen with an op-ed about Brexit in the Norwegian Business Daily ‘Dagens Næringsliv’

68 Outreach

Interviews based on own researchDette er den nye feminismen, Cathrine Holst,

Forskning.no, 23 January

Gode kommisjoner virker forsonende, Cathrine Holst and Eva Krick, University of Oslo, 2 July

Norsk-koordinerte prosjekter trekkes frem i Horisont 2020, Helene Sjursen, Norwegian Research Council, 28 August

ARENA-prosjekt får skryt i evaluering av Horisont 2020, Helene Sjursen, Uniforum, 30 August

GLOBUS trekkes fram som suksesshistorie, Helene Sjursen, Universitetet i Oslo, 31 August

Økt makt til ekspertene kan bli et problem, Cathrine Holst, Fagpressenytt, 2 September

Demokrati består av både konflikter og kompromiss, Johan P. Olsen, University of Oslo, 5 September

Ekspertstyrt politikk, Cathrine Holst, Rix, 6 September

Demokrati er vilje til å inngå kompromiss, Johan P. Olsen, Forskning.no, 7 September

Den mystiske ministerposten, Jarle Trondal, Dag og Tid, 8 September

Blogs and commentsEuropeisk integrasjon er vår tids franske revolusjon,

Erik O. Eriksen, Erik O. Eriksens blogg, 23 January

Ingen “Rosenpickerei”, Erik O. Eriksen, Erik O. Eriksens blogg, 3 February

Is the World Trade Organization unjust? Johanne Døhlie Saltnes and Kjartan Koch Mikalsen, Global Justice Blog, 20 February

The 2017 UK election: reflections from Norway, John Erik Fossum, Election Analysis (date unknown)

‘You’ll hate it’: why the Norway option amounts to self-inflicted subservience to the EU, Erik O. Eriksen, LSE Brexit Blog, 20 November

Brexit – en norsk hodepine, Erik O. Eriksen, forskning.no, 27 November

Professional ethics in the age of AI: Upgrading to v3.0, Andreas Eriksen, Professional Ethics, 6 September

The European Parliament’s empowerment in EU external trade policy, Guri Rosén, JEPP Online Blog, 25 September

Die Demokratie beleben, Eva Krick, der Freitag, 6 December

69Outreach

Johanna Strikwerda interviewed about the Dutch election by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation

The known unknowns of Brexit, Christopher Lord, Erik O. Eriksens blog (guest entry), 15 December

News commentaries and expert opinionsSolbergs utsegner vekkjer oppsikt, Erik O. Eriksen,

Nationen [interview], 10 January

Theresa May varsler fullt brudd med EU, Erik O. Eriksen, Bergens Tidene/NTB [interview], 17 January

Austerrike vil innskrenke fri rørsle, Espen D.H. Olsen and Erik O. Eriksen, Nationen [interview], 24 January

- USA og Russland styrker høyrepopulister i Europa, Erik O. Eriksen, Vårt Land/NTB [interview], 2 February

Solbergs nasjonalisme-retorikk vekker oppsikt, Erik O. Eriksen, NRK, [interview], 15 February

Cathrine Holst: - Vi ser et globalt tilbakeslag, Cathrine Holst, Aftenposten [interview], 8 March

Nederlands høyrenasjonalist, Johanna Strikwerda, NRK Urix [TV Interview], 8 March

Geert Wilders har stjålet det meste av oppmerksomheten foran parlamentsvalget i Nederland den 15. mars, Erik O. Eriksen, Dagens Næringsliv [interview], 10 March

Publikasjonspoeng utløser økonomiske midler til opphavsinstitusjon, altså penger i kassa for UiA, Jarle Trondal, Agderposten [interview], 11 March

70 Outreach

Norsk professor i opprop for å berge EU i eksistensiell krise, John Erik Fossum, ABC Nyheter [interview], 11 March

Konflikten med Tyrkia kan avgjøre valget i Nederland, Erik O. Eriksen, Dagbladet [interview], 15 March

- Wilders har flyttet debatten drastisk til høyre, Erik O. Eriksen, Newshub NO [interview], 16 March

Dokument – EU 60 år, Hans-Jörg Trenz, Nationen [interview], 24 March

Tar fartskrangelen i EU med knusende ro, Erik O. Eriksen, Aftenposten [interview], 24 March

Kan gå mot eit meir oppdelt EU, Helene Sjursen, Nationen [interview], 24 March

Vil ha ny kurs for Europa, Jarle Trondal, Aftenposten [interview], 25 March

Frykter nådeløs maktkamp, Erik O. Eriksen, NRK [interview], 29 March

Storbritannia forlater EU, uten å nevne EØS. – Det er skuffende og farlig for oss, Erik O. Eriksen, Dagbladet [interview], 29 March

Forholdet til EU i spill, Erik O. Eriksen, Dagsavisen [interview], 19 April

Krever stans av EØS-midler og tiggere, Erik O. Eriksen, Dagens Næringsliv [interview], 6 May

Ein valuta med tillitsproblem, Asimina Michailidou, Dag og Tid [interview], 26 May

Ser bort fra Trump: Europa må ta lederskap. Trumps hvite hus, Erik O. Eriksen, Dagbladet [interview], 3 June

EU-ledere frykter svakt Storbritannia i brexitforhandlingene, Erik O. Eriksen. VG [interview], 9 June

ARENA-forsker i publiseringstoppen, Jarle Trondal, University of Oslo [interview], 19 June

Ønsker å prege den internasjonale fagdebatten, Jarle Trondal, Universitetet i Agder [interview], 22 June

Erik O. Eriksen in ‘Aftenposten’ about the need for more research on Europe and the EU

71Outreach

Left: Asimina Michailidou interviwed by ‘Dag og tid’ about the lack of trust in the euro; right: Erik O. Eriksen interviewed by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation about the conflict between Poland and the EU

- Et slag for innvandringskritikken, John Erik Fossum, Dagsavisen [interview], 23 June

Han er UiAs toppforsker, Jarle Trondal, Fædrelandsvennen [interview], 26 June

Trondal på topp, Jarle Trondal, Aust Agder Blad [interview], 27 June

Slik blir nordmenns rettigheter i Storbritannia etter brexit, Erik O. Eriksen, VG [interview], 28 June

Angela Merkel har vunnet nordmenns tillit, viser Dagbladets tall, Erik O. Eriksen, Dagbladet [interview], 10 July

NHO-sjefen vil ikke ha britisk storebror, Erik O. Eriksen, Dagens Næringsliv [interview], 17 August

Frps stabilitet overrasker forskere, Erik O. Eriksen, Vårt Land [interview], 4 September

Rød nedtur, Erik O. Eriksen, Vårt Land [interview], 6 September

Tettere bånd mellom forskere og NAV, Cathrine Holst, Velferd [interview], 19 September

Norge har vært medlem av EU siden juni 1994, Erik O. Eriksen, Faktisk.no/NRK [interview], 26 September

72 Outreach

Nederlandske politikere har forhandlet om ny regjering i over 200 dager. Mandag kan de slå egen rekord, Johanna Strikwerda, Aftenposten [interview], 5 October

Forstår ikke katalanernes «merkelige oppførsel», Erik O. Eriksen, Dagens Næringsliv [interview], 12 October

Ekspertenes inntog, Cathrine Holst, NRK Verdibørsen [radio interview], 17 October

Her er de krevende sakene for Røsland, Erik O. Eriksen, Nationen [interview], 21 October

Tar kontroll over Catalonia, Erik O. Eriksen, Dagens Næringsliv [interview], 30 October

Millionane som vil endre Spania, Agustín Menéndes, Dag og Tid [interview], 3 November

Opprør mot stipendkutt, Cathrine Holst, Klassekampen [interview], 15 November

EU varslar sterkare satsning på sosiale rettar, Erik O. Eriksen, Nationen [interview], 21 NovemberDen nye feministbylgja, Cathrine Holst, Dag og Tid [interview], 1 December

Efta kan bli større, Erik O. Eriksen, Nationen [interview], 5 December

Folkeavstemning – en god idé? John Erik Fossum, NRK P2 Studio 2 [radio interview], 7 December

Agustín J. Menéndez interviewed by ‘Dag og Tid’ about the Catalan independence movement in Spain

Organisation and staff

74

Personnel and economyAs a research centre based at the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Oslo, the main part of ARENA’s budget is financed by external funding sources. In 2017, the centre’s main sources of external funding were the Research Council of Norway, the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme, the Norwegian Ministry of Defence and the Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation.

Key figures 2017

Professors including research professors (work years)

6

Senior researchers and post docs (work years)

7.7

PhD fellows 7.3

MA students 5

Administrative staff 4

Research assistants 2

Total budget (NOK million) 26

External financing 73 %


The ARENA BoardChairMagnus GulbrandsenCentre for Technology, Innovation and Culture (TIK), University of Oslo

Board membersIngvild Marheim LarsenNorwegian Ministry of Education and Research

Asgeir FløtreNorwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation

Steinar StjernøOslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences

Marit EldholmEspen D. H. OlsenStaff representatives

Deputy members for staff representatives:Johanne Døhlie Saltnes and Jørgen Bølstad

75

Administrative Director Ida Hjelmesæth

Hjelmesæth has worked in ARENA’s research administration since 2008 and been Administrative Director since September 2015.

On leave from October

Tara Sarin

Sarin has been Head of Administration for the K.G. Jebsen Inflammation Research Centre at the University of Oslo/Oslo University Hospital. She also has national and international project management experience from EU-funded projects and the United Nations.

From October

ARENA Director Prof. Erik Oddvar Eriksen

Eriksen has been professor at the University of Tromsø and the University of Bergen, professor II at the Centre for the Study of Professions at Oslo University College, and is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Aalborg.

Eriksen’s main research fields are political theory, public policy and European integration. His interest in legitimate rule has led to publications on democracy in the EU, governance and leadership, functions and limits of the state, deliberative democracy, trust, regional politics, security politics and the welfare state.

ARENA Management


76

Academic staff


Prof. John Erik FossumResearch: Political theory, democracy and constitutionalism in the EU and Canada, Europeanisation, nation-state transformation

Dr. Jørgen BølstadResearch: Political economy, political psychology, democratic representation, quantitative methods, time series analysis.

Prof. Christopher LordResearch: Democracy, legitimacy, political parties in the EU, the history of Britain and Europe, the political economy of the monetary union

Dr. Asimina Michailidou Research: Public sphere theory, political and public communication, globalization and political activism, online media and impact on EU politics

Dr. Espen D. H. OlsenResearch: European citizenship, EU integration, citizen deliberation, deliberative democracy, the Eurocrisis, political theory, qualitative methods

Dr. Eva KrickResearch: Political theory, comparative politics, role of expertise in policy-making, decision-making, legitimacy, climate and energy policy

From March

Dr. Alexander KatsaitisResearch: Lobbying, interest groups, the European Parliament, pluralism, democracy, legitimacy

From July

Dr. Andreas EriksenResearch: Political theory, legitimacy, professional judgment, role moralities, normative cognitivism, public reason.

From September

77Organisation and staff

Prof. Cathrine Holst Research: Political theory, philosophy of social science, the role of expertise in the EU, gender equality policies, feminist theory and gender studies

Prof. Morten EgebergProfessor, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo

Research: The role of organisation-al factors in political systems, the European Commission, the relationship between the EU and the national levels, EU agencies and national executives

Dr. Mai’a K. Davis CrossProfessor, Political Science, Northeastern University

Research: European foreign and secu-rity policy (CFSP/CSDP), diplomacy, public diplomacy, soft/smart power

Prof. Helene SjursenResearch: The EU as an international actor, the EU’s foreign and security policy, EU enlargement, democratic aspects of foreign and security policy

Dr. Guri Rosén Research: EU’s external trade policy, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the European Parliament

Prof. Emeritus Johan P. OlsenResearch: Organisational decision-making, New Institutionalism, democracy, power and the Scandinavian model, the changing political organisation of Europe

Part-time

Prof. Åse Gornitzka Professor, Department of Political Science and vice rector, University of Oslo

Research: European education and research policy, the role of expertise in EU policy-making, the domestic impact of the EU’s soft modes of governance

Johanne Døhlie SaltnesResearch: The EU’s development policy, the EU’s foreign and security policy, sanctions

78 Organisation and staff

PhD fellowsTine Elisabeth Johnsen BrøggerPhD project: ‘The EU in crisis: Implications for the Common Security and Defence Policy’

Claire GodetPhD project: ‘How does the EU legitmacy crisis prevent the reform of its failed policies? The case of the Emissions Trading System’

Stine HesstvedtPhD project: ‘Experts in policymaking: The case of Norwegian public inquiry commissions’

Joris MelmanPhD project: ‘Popular understandings of the legitimacy of the EU response to the financial crisis’

Trym Nohr FjørtoftPhD project: ‘Expertise and democracy in non-majoritarian institutions’

Prof. Jarle TrondalProfessor, University of Agder Research: EU as a political system, administrative integration/transforma-tion, EU/EEA and Norway, European Commission, EU committee governance

Prof. Hans-Jörg TrenzEURECO Professor, Centre for Modern European Studies, University of Copenhagen

Research: European public sphere and civil society, cultural and political soci-ology, migration and ethnic minorities, European civilisation and identity

Prof. Agustín José MenéndezProfesor Contratado Doctor Permanente I3, University of León

Research: Democracy, fundamental rights, legitimacy, EU constitutional theory, national vs. EU law, the EU’s social dimension

79Organisation and staff

Guest researchers

Silje H. TørnbladPhD project: ‘The European Commission’s expert groups: More than expertise?’

Johanna StrikwerdaPhD project: ‘Pushing the boundaries of inter-governmentalism? The role of the Commission in the CFSP’

Helena SeibickePhD project: ‘The European Women’s Lobby: Advocacy in the EU’s Discursive Opportunity Structure’

Lyudmila Igumnova Associate Professor, Irkutsk State University

Project: ‘Soft, normative or transformative power: what kind of actor the European external action service is in communications to Russia’

September

Anke S. SchwarzkopfPhD project: ‘The role of the European Union at the United Nations’

Jan PeslPhD project: ‘The EU’s post-crisis legitimacy and the public sphere’

Antonio CalcaraPhD candidate, LUISS Guido Carli University - Rome

Project: ‘European cooperation in defence procurement’ (ANTERO)

June-July

Torbjørn GundersenPhD candidate, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University

Project: EPISTO and REFLEX

June-August and November-December


Hayley WalkerPhD Fellow, KU Leuven

Project: ‘Multilateral negotiations on climate and the environment’ (ANTERO and GLOBUS)

June-July

Bent Sofus TranøyProfessor, Hedmark University College and Oslo School of Management

Project: ‘Political economy and the Eurocrisis’ All year (part time)

Marianne RiddervoldAssociate Professor, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences

Project: ‘The maritime turn in EU foreign and security policies’Until December

Kjartan Koch MikalsenAssociate Professor, Norwegian University of Technology and Science (NTNU)

Project: GLOBUS and REFLEX Until May

Bruno Oliveira MartinsPostdoctoral fellow, University of Malmö

Project: ‘Intersections between technological developments, security practices, and societal change’March-August

David MayesProfessor and Director of the Europe Institute, University of Auckland

Project: ‘Implications of banking union and fiscal aspects of monetary union’ (EuroDiv and REFLEX)Until November

Eva KrickPostdoctoral fellow, Humboldt University Berlin

Project: ‘Participatory governance in knowledge-intensive fields - Reconciling epistemic and political authority in energy and climate policy’

Until February

81

Administration Research assistants


Jorunn Skodje

Ragnhild Grønning

Maria DikovaSenior Executive Officer (project management, publications and events)

Geir Ove KværkGLOBUS Project Manager Senior Adviser

Marit EldholmPLATO Project ManagerAdviser

Mads A. DanielsenSenior Executive Officer (communications)

From November


MA studentsSpring 2017

Stein Arne Brekke‘Establishing a common european asy-lum system: Tracing the impact of EU policy making on asylum outcomes’Supervisor: Jørgen Bølstad

Eirik Tegle Stenstad ‘Failing forward towards reduced instability? Integration and aggregation in EU financial regulation’ Supervisor: Bent Sofus Tranøy

Autumn 2017

Martin Moland‘Legitimacy and trust as victims of institutionalized austerity: A statistical analysis of persistent effects of austerity on trust in and support for the EU’Supervisor: Jørgen Bølstad

Hans Jacob Sandberg‘A Horn in the Side: A case study on why the EU has interfered in Somalia’Supervisor: Helene Sjursen

Joachim Vigrestad‘Partnerships for Sustainable Trade? EU’s Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters in the Context of Global Justice’Supervisor: Helene Sjursen

Introduction - Det samfunnsvitenskapelige fakultet...5 Funding Research and Innovation Action...

Documents

Transcript of Introduction - Det samfunnsvitenskapelige fakultet...5 Funding Research and Innovation Action...