Decision-Making in the European Union Before and After Lisbon

November 3-4, 2011 @ Leiden University.

This scholarly workshop held at the University of Leiden brought together more than a dozen scholars from nine countries on both sides of the Atlantic to present new research examining the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on a variety of aspects of decision making within EU institutions. Spread across two days five different panels on topics including: “Coalition-Formation, Ideology and Decision-Making in the Council of the European Union,” “The Council Presidency, External Representation and Policy Responsiveness Before and After Lisbon” and “Patterns of Inter-Institutional Cooperation after Lisbon” investigated the changes wrought by the new treaty. A full program of the workshop, brief bios of participants and abstracts for all papers, as well as links to several full papers) are provided here.

Program

November 3, 2011 from 11:00-17:00 in Room 0A43 (“Bestuurskamer”), Pieter de la Court Building, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Leiden University.

Time Topic / Event
11:00-11:15 Welcome
11:15-13:00 Session I: “Patterns of Inter-Institutional Cooperation After Lisbon”
Chair: Amie Kreppel

Changes After Lisbon
Amy Verdun (University of Victoria)

The Limits of Inter-Institutional Cooperation: Defining (Common) Rules of Conduct for EU Officials, Office-Holders and Legislators
Michelle Cini (University of Bristol)

Implementing and Delegated Acts After Lisbon – Towards the Parliamentarisation of Policy-Implementation?
Thomas Christiansen (University of Maastricht), Mathias Dobbels (University of Maastricht)

Discussant: Sophie Vanhoonacker (University of Maastricht)

13:00-14:15 lunch
14:15-16:00 Session II: “Coalition-Formation, Ideology and Decision-Making in the Council of the European Union”
Chair: Amy Verdun

Governing with a Janus Face: Member State Representatives in the EU After Lisbon
Amie Kreppel, University of Florida

National Actors and the EU: Institutions Before and After Lisbon
Běla Plechanovová, Charles University in Prague

Double Versus Triple Majorities: Will the New Voting Rules in the Council of Ministers Make a Difference?
Robert Thomson, Trinity College Dublin

Discussant: Madeleine Hosli (Leiden University)

16:00-16:30 coffee break
16:30-17:00 Session III: “The DEUBAL Project: Research, Insights, Webpage”
18:30 dinner (Faculty Club)

 

November 4, 2011 from 9:15-17:00 in Faculty Club, Grachtenkamer, Rapenburg 73 at Leiden University.

Time Topic / Event
9:15-10:00 The DEUBAL Data Base: an Overview of Aims and Recent Developments
10:00-10:30 coffee break
10:30-12:15 Session IV: “The European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Council After Lisbon”
Chair: Madeleine Hosli
The European Council Before and After Lisbon
Wolfgang Wessels (University of Cologne)

Explaining Negotiation Outcomes in the Conciliation Committee
Fabio Franchino (University of Milan), Camilla Mariotto (University of Milan)

Dynamics of Policy Responsiveness in EU Governance: Public Opinion and EU Institutions
Christine Arnold (University of Maastricht)

Discussant: Adam Chalmers (Leiden University)

12:15-13:45 lunch
13:45-15:30 Session V: “The Council Presidency, External Representation and Policy Responsiveness Before and After Lisbon”
Chair: Běla Plechanovová

The Post-Lisbon European Council Presidency
Desmond Dinan (George Mason University)

New Titles, Same Game? Legislative Decision-Making in the Council and the Council Presidency After Lisbon
Andreas Warntjen (University of Twente)

European Union Voting in the United Nations General Assembly
Xi Jin (Leiden University), Madeleine Hosli (Leiden University)

Discussant: Amy Verdun (University of Victoria)

15:30-16:00 coffee break
16:00-17:00 Session VI: “The DEUBAL Project: Plans for Publications and Future (Research) Activities”
17:00 reception (Restaurant, Faculty Club)

Abstracts

The Deaf Leading the Blind?
Public Opinion and European Union Policy

Christine Arnold (University of Maastricht), Mark Franklin (European University Institute), Christopher Wlezien (Temple University)

This paper examines the connection between public opinion and policy change asking, to what extent the level of public support and the degree of heterogeneity of public opinion can be utilized to explain the variance in the volume of European legislation both across policy fields and across time. Past research has established a link between public opinion and policy, with the European public responding to the volume of EC/EU legislation. This paper confirms that linkage over a longer time period and investigates the other half of the reciprocal link needed for thermostatic control of policy formation. Do the decisions of the European Union reflect the wishes of the European public? We employ data from Eurobarometer surveys conducted between 1978 and 2004. Additionally, we use data from the Official Journal of the EU for the same time period to classify legislation into policy fields. We find evidence that EU policy-makers do respond to EU public opinion, at least to some extent, but that there is a substantial disjuncture between the public and policymakers. That is, a democratic deficit remains.

Implementing and Delegated Acts After Lisbon
– Towards the Parliamentarisation of Policy-Implementation?

Thomas Christiansen (University of Maastricht), Mathias Dobbels (University of Maastricht)

The European Parliament is frequently seen as the “big winner” of the Lisbon Treaty, given the fact that several changes (e.g. extension of the co-decision as the ordinary legislative procedure, introduction of the assent procedure to international agreements) have significantly extended the its powers. The reform of comitology (Art.291) and the introduction of the new instrument of delegated acts (Art.290) is generally seen in the same light, marking the culmination of a long-standing quest of the EP to gain equal rights to the Council in this area. This article questions the view of an unconditional “success” of the Parliament by examining in some detail the way in which the new provisions have been implemented, arguing that Member States in the Council managed to claw back influence over delegated powers through the way in which the new treaty articles have been put into practice. We identify the EP’s timing and selective attention with regard to this domain as the main explanations for this outcome. Our analysis demonstrates the need to study the actual implementation of treaty provisions before coming to a conclusion about the “winners” and “losers” of treaty reform.

The Limits of Inter-Institutional Cooperation: Defining (Common)
Rules of Conduct for EU Officials, Office-Holders and Legislators

Michelle Cini (University of Bristol)

A number of attempts have been made, especially by the European Commission, to encourage common rules of conduct across the EU institutions. This paper will concentrate on the decision-making process in two cases: the successful creation of a common register for lobbyists; and the (so-far) failed attempt to set up an inter-institutional advisory committee on public ethics. The aim of the paper is to examine the conditions under which successful inter-institutional cooperation occurs at EU level in cases where the EU institutions seek to regulate (and constrain) their own behaviour.

The Post-Lisbon European Council Presidency

Desmond Dinan (George Mason University)

  • Download Paper

Explaining Outcomes of Conciliation Committee’s Negotiations

Camilla Mariotto (University of Milan), Fabio Franchino (University of Milan),

Who gets what in the Conciliation Committee? Are the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers really on an equal footing in the co-decision procedure? The study of negotiations within the Conciliation Committee, especially from a quantitative perspective, has been rather neglected. This paper illustrates the results drawn from an innovative dataset applying Wordfish to the analysis of all the legislative texts produced prior and after the proceedings of the Conciliation Committee. The initial results indicate that the joint texts produced by the Committee are more similar to the prior positions of the Council than that of the Parliament. However, over the two decades since the Maastricht Treaty, this advantage appears to have diminished and compromise positions, located in between those of the two institutions, are more likely.

European Union Voting in the United Nations General Assembly

Madeleine Hosli (Professor of International Relations, Leiden University), Xi Jin (Department of Political Science, Leiden University)

This paper studies effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the ways in which the EU presents itself as an actor in global politics. It analyses this issue for the case of voting in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). We explore the voting behaviour of EU states in the UNGA between 1993 and the present, and assess voting cohesion among EU member states for the phases pre- and post-Lisbon. We interpret EU presence at the UNGA in terms of a principal-agent model within the neo-institutionalist framework. Our empirical findings, comparing EU voting in the UNGA before and after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, reveal that there is no significant difference in the voting cohesion of the EU within the UNGA before and after ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. It even seems, comparing average values on EU coherence, that voting cohesion has slightly declined in the post-Lisbon as compared to the pre-Lisbon era. In addition to this, currently EU voting cohesion is not markedly different from that of other regional organizations within the UNGA. This implies that EU coordination in international organizations, although stronger than in earlier decades, may still need strengthening in the future if the EU really aims to be speaking “with one voice” in the global realm.

Governing with a Janus Face:
Member State Representatives in the EU After Lisbon

Amie Kreppel (Jean Monnet Chair (ad personam); Associate Professor)

This project examines the dual roles of national representatives within the European Council and the Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) as members of the executive branch at home and the legislative branch within the EU. The Lisbon Treaty clarifies the legislative character of the Council of the European Union and expands the executive role of the European Council through the creation of a President and formal Foreign Minister. These changes open up new possibilities for shifting decision making strategies and patterns of coalition formation. In some cases these changes may create internal tensions within national governments (especially coalitions) as they perform their tasks at the EU level. This research looks at these relationships theoretically, paying particular attention to the potential role of ideology in coalition formation within the various Council formations. It then works to empirically examine the actual character of coalition and voting behavior to determine the extent to which ideology as well as national interest drive decision making behavior in the Council of the European Union post-Lisbon.

Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes:
Evidence from the European Parliament

Abdul Noury (Free University, Brussels)

  • Download Paper

In this paper we look at the magnitude of the selection bias in roll call votes. Before 2009 some votes in the European Parliament were published (roll call votes) while others remained unpublished. After 2009 the European Parliament changed the rules so that all final legislative votes are roll call. Using this exogenous change as a “natural experiment”, we compute the differences between amendments and final legislative votes before and after 2009. Our difference-in-difference estimates indicate small or no selection bias in the European Parliament roll call votes.

National Actors and EU:
Institutions Before and After Lisbon

Běla Plechanovová (Associate Professor at Department of International Relations, Charles University in Prague)

  • Download Paper

This project addresses relations between national actors and the EU institutional framework before and after implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. It focuses, inter alia, on the following questions: How does the institutional setting influence the behaviour of these actors, notably in the Council of the EU, but also towards the EP and the Commission? What can we expect in terms of national actors’ behaviour in these institutions on the basis of empirical information on EU decision-making before Lisbon and information on the recent changes as regards EU decision-making rules? The focus will be on the behaviour of the member states in the Council and on inter-institutional relations between the Council and the EP and the Commission, respectively. Empirically, the project draws on a large collection of data assembled by the author and her research team as regards decision-making in the Council of the EU and the dynamics of the legislative process in recent period. Methodologically the project rests on quantitative methodology (voting power analysis, network analysis, and simulation) which allow estimation of the actors’ behaviour while testing the statistical significance of various variables/parameters. This project aims at assessing the chances of change of behaviour of the national actors within the institutional setting after Lisbon, the probability of the policy shift and its direction in various policy areas. Given the political relevance and the innovative methodology, the findings will be of interest both to policy makers and researchers.

Double Versus Triple Majorities: Will the New Voting Rules in the Council of Ministers Make a Difference?

Robert Thomson (Trinity College Dublin)

The Lisbon Treaty will introduce a new system of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers. This new system attempts to allay concerns that the recent historic enlargements of the EU will lead to legislative gridlock. What difference will the new rules make in practice? According to the Nice Treaty rules that still govern QMV, a bill can be adopted by the Council of 27 member states if approved by states that together i) hold 255 of 345 votes, ii) are at least 14 in number and iii) have at least 62 percent of the EU’s total population. The new Lisbon Treaty rules will be brought in gradually between 2014 and 2017. After this transition period, a bill will be adopted by the Council of 27 states if it is approved by a group of member states that are i) 15 in number and ii) have at least 65 percent of the EU’s total population. To prevent a small number of large states from blocking adoption, the population criterion only applies if at least four member states are against adoption.

This study examines the effect of the Lisbon Treaty’s new double majority system with a new dataset on decision-making in the EU. The dataset includes information on the policy positions of member states on 145 controversial issues in legislative decision making (from 52 bills) that were discussed in the period 2004-2009 period under the Nice rules. The analyses assess the extent to which decision outcomes would have been different if the Lisbon rules had applied to these cases. The main conclusion is that the Lisbon rules are unlikely to have a marked effect on decision-making in the Council in most cases. The paper concludes by discussing the features of Council decision-making that ameliorate the impact of these rule changes.

Changes After Lisbon

Amy Verdun (Professor and Chair of Political Science, University of Victoria; Director, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence; Jean Monnet Chair (ad personam))

  • Download Paper

This project explores the changes after implementation of the Lisbon Treaty for EU institutions. How can these changes be captured in theoretical terms? What are the implications of the Lisbon Treaty as regards inter-institutional relations in the EU? Based on literature on EU decision-making and theories of European integration, the project describes expected changes and analyzes how member states are likely to try to influence decision-making, given the post-Lisbon situation. The project uses qualitative research methodology. More explicitly, it aims to map elite perspectives on EU decision-making post-Lisbon compared to decision-making before the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

New Titles, Same Game? Legislative Decision-Making
in the Council and the Council Presidency After Lisbon

Andreas Warntjen (University of Twente)

  • Download Paper

One of the major innovations in the institutional set-up of the European Union enacted by the Lisbon Treaty was the establishment of an elected Presidency to head the European Council. This office was set up to ensure the consistency of the Council’s work. Indeed, for decades observers have lamented the lack of an office ensuring the continuity of the Council’s work, not least in the legislative field. However, the Presidency continues to rotate every six months between member states at the ministerial and working group level. This paper briefly reviews the discussion on the Council Presidency leading up to the changes in the Lisbon treaty and argues that the changes adopted in Lisbon – contrary to its stated purpose – are unlikely to increase the consistency of the Council’s work.

The European Council Before and After Lisbon

Wolfgang Wessels (University of Cologne)

 

Participants

Christine Arnold

University of Maastricht

Christine Arnold is Assistant Professor at the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands. Her teaching and research interests are in comparative politics, public opinion, and research methods. Some of her work has been published in International Studies Quarterly, European Union Politics, Political Studies, Journal of Contemporary European Research and several book chapters.

Thomas Christiansen

University of Maastricht

Thomas Christiansen is Jean Monnet Professor of European Institutional Politics and Director of Studies for the Research Masters in European Studies, on which he is also teaching courses on European institutions and EU treaty reform. He is Executive Editor of the Journal of European Integration, co-editor of the “Europe in Change” series at Manchester University Press and member of the steering committee of the Standing Group of the European Union of the European Consortium of Political Research. He has published widely on different aspects of the institutional politics of the EU, with particular focus on the European Commission, the Council Secretariat and the role of comitology committees. Constitutionalizing the European Union, co-authored with C. Reh, was published in the European Union Series at Palgrave in 2009, and The European Union after the Lisbon Treaty, co-authored with E. Best and W. Wessels is forthcoming with Oxford University Press.

Return to top

Michelle Cini

University of Bristol

Michelle Cini is Professor of European Politics in the School of Politics, Sociology and International Studies at the University of Bristol. She is also co-editor of the Journal of Common Market Studies, and of the Oxford University Press textbook EU Politics.

Michelle Cini’s research has focused on politics and administration of the European Commission and on European competition and state aid policy. She is currently involved in a project on public ethics in the EU institutions, which focuses on the ethics systems under construction for EU office-holders, officials and for lobbyists.

Return to top

Desmond Dinan

George Mason University

Desmond Dinan is Professor of Public Policy and holds the ad personam Jean Monnet Chair in the School of Public Policy, George Mason University, Virginia, USA. He is a leading authority on the European Union. His publications include Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration, 4th edition (2010), Origin and Evolution of the European Union (edited, 2006), and Europe Recast: A History of European Union (2004). Since 1999, he has written the article on Institutions and Governance for the annual review of the Journal of Common Market Studies. He has worked in the European Commission, Brussels, and taught at the Bruges (Belgium) and Natolin (Poland) campuses of the College of Europe. He was a Fernand Braudel Senior Fellow at the European University Institute during the 2010-2011 academic year. His research interests include EU history and historiography; institutions and governance; and enlargement.

Return to top

Mathias Dobbels

University of Maastricht

Mathias Dobbels holds a Bachelor’s degree in International Politics (2007) and a Master’s degree in European Studies from Ghent University (2008). He did his Erasmus studies at Leeds University (2007) and completed the EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies programme at the College of Europe as laureate of the Marcus Aurelius Promotion (2009). Mathias was also laureate of the “Esprit Européen” scholarship of the Bernheim Foundation and did an internship at the Belgian Permanent Representation to the EU in Brussels and at the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After this he was working as Deputy Mertens during the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union and assumed the Mertens function in 2011. He started working at Maastricht University in January 2011 as early stage researcher in the framework of the INCOOP Project (Marie Curie). His research deals with inter-institutional negotiations in the European Union with a special focus on the European Parliament.

Return to top

Fabio Franchino

University of Milan

Fabio Franchino is Professor of Political Science at the University of Milan. His primary interests are the politics and policy of the European Union, comparative politics and formal modelling.

Return to top

Mark Franklin

European University Institute

Mark Franklin is the Stein Rokkan Professor of Comparative Politics at the European University Institute, Italy. Dr. Franklin’s main research interests lie in British, European and American government and political economy, political methodology, and the attitudes and behavior of elites and mass publics. His books include Electoral Change (1992), Choosing Europe (1996), Voter Turnout (2004) and The Economy and the Vote (2007).

Return to top

Madeleine Hosli

Professor of International Relations, Leiden University

Dr. Madeleine O. Hosli is Professor of International Relations at Leiden University. She studied political science and economics at the Universities of Zurich and St. Gallen (Switzerland). After a postdoctoral fellowship at the Center for Political Studies (CPS) of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1991-1993), she taught at the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) in Maastricht (1993-1996), the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva (1996-1997), the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1999-2001) and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2001-2003). She joined the Department of Political Science at Leiden University in 2003, where she was crucially involved in the establishment and design of the Master of Arts program in International Relations and Diplomacy. Her major research interests are in international political economy, international organization, institutions and European integration.

Return to top

Xi Jin

Department of Political Science, Leiden University

Xi Jin obtained a LLB degree at the China University of Political Science and Law in 2008. She graduated cum laude in 2010 from the two-year Master in International Relations and Diplomacy at Leiden University, offered in cooperation with the Netherlands Institute of International Relations (“Clingendael”). Since August 2010, she is a Ph.D. student at the Institute of Political Science at Leiden University, focusing her research on the role of the European Union in the United Nations (UN), notably the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, within the Institute’s research program on “Institutions of Politics: Design, Workings, and Implications”.

Return to top

Amie Kreppel

Jean Monnet Chair (ad personam); Associate Professor

Amie Kreppel is a Jean Monnet Chair (ad personam) and was the founding Director of the University of Florida’s Title VI funded Center for European Studies (CES) and the European Union funded Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence. She is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and the Chair of the European Union Studies Association (EUSA) from 2011-2013.

Dr. Kreppel has written extensively on the political institutions of Europe in general and the European Union more specifically. Her publications include a book on the Development of the European Parliament and Supranational Party System, published by Cambridge University Press (2002) as well as articles in a wide variety of journals including Comparative Political Studies, the British Journal of Political Research, European Union Politics, the European Journal of Political Research, Political Research Quarterly, the Journal of European Public Policy and the Journal of Common Market Studies.

Dr. Kreppel is a founding member of the transatlantic European Parliament Research Group (EPRG) and was a Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC. In addition, she has served as international visiting faculty at the Université Louis Pasteur (ULP), Strasbourg, France, Institut für Höhere Studien (Institute for Advanced Studies) Vienna, Austria, and the l’Institut d’Etudes Européennes, Université Libre Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels Belgium. She has received numerous grants to pursue research and program development related to Europe and the European Union including a MacArthur Fellowship, a grant from the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, three internal research grants from the University of Florida and Title VIa (UISFLP) and Title VI (NRC) grants from the United States Department of Education, as well as several grants from the European Union. In Spring 2011 she was a visiting Fernand Braudel Senior Fellow at the European University Institute (EUI) in Italy.

Return to top

Camilla Mariotto

University of Milan

Camilla Mariotto is a Ph.D. student in political studies at the Graduate School of Social and Political Studies of the University of Milan. Her primary interests are positive political theory, European politics, quantitative research methods and comparative politics.

Return to top

Abdul Noury

Free University, Brussels

Abdul G. Noury, is Associate Professor of Political Economy at New York University-Abu Dhabi. Previously, he was associate professor of economics and research director of the Institute for European Studies at Free University of Brussels. He has co-authored, with Simon Hix and Gerard Roland, Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. He has authored numerous peer-reviewed papers in political science and economics journals.

Return to top

Běla Plechanovová

Associate Professor at Department of International Relations, Charles University in Prague

Dr. Běla Plechanovová is Associate Professor at Department of International Relations at Charles University in Prague. She graduated from Charles University Prague, Faculty of Arts, in History and Political Economy. She did her Ph.D. in Modern History at the Institute of Czech and World History of the Czech Academy of Sciences (1987-1990). She joined the Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University Prague, in 1990 and is a founding member of the Institute of Political Sciences, as well as a co-author of the International Relations and Security Studies Programmes. Since 2004 she serves as a head of the Department of International Relations. She is a Director of Security Studies Programme. She was a Vice-Dean of the Faculty for International Affairs 2002-2010. Since 2009 she has been a guest professor at the University of Konstanz. Her research interests are politics and institutions of the European Union and history of the European integration process.

Return to top

Robert Thomson

Trinity College Dublin

Robert Thomson is a Senior Lecturer and Fellow at Trinity College Dublin. His research interests include the study of decision-making, policy implementation and empirical democratic theory, all with a focus on European politics. He is author of the book Resolving Controversy in the European Union and co-editor/author of The European Union Decides (both Cambridge University Press). His work on various aspects of European politics has appeared in journals such as the British Journal of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, European Union Politics, the European Journal of Political Research, the Journal of European Public Policy and the Journal of Politics.

Return to top

Amy Verdun

Professor and Chair of Political Science, University of Victoria; Director, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence; Jean Monnet Chair (ad personam)

Amy Verdun is Jean Monnet Chair (ad personam), Professor of Political Science, and Chair of the Department at the University of Victoria (UVic) in British Columbia, Canada, where she has been since 1997. She holds a Ph.D. in Political and Social Sciences from the European University Institute Florence Italy (1995) and an MA level degree in Political Science (International Relations) from the University of Amsterdam. Her earlier appointments were at the University of Leiden (1991-1992) and at the University of Essex (1995-1996). She was a visiting professor at the Max Planck Institute in Cologne Germany and in 2004 at Sciences Po in Paris France and at the University of Leiden Netherlands in Fall 2009.

She is author or editor of sixteen books and has published in a dozen scholarly journals, such as Acta Politica, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, European Union Politics, International Studies Review, Journal of Common Market Studies, Journal of European Integration, Journal of European Public Policy, Journal of Public Policy, and Review of International Political Economy. Her recent books are Ruling Europe: The Politics of the Stability and Growth Pact with Martin Heipertz (Cambridge University Press 2010), EMU and Political Science: What Have We Learned? Henrik Enderlein and Amy Verdun (eds) (London: Routledge), The Common Agricultural Policy: Policy Dynamics in a Changing Context, Grace Skogstad and Amy Verdun (eds) (London: Routledge). Globalization, Development and Integration, Pompeo della Posta and Amy Verdun (eds) (2009) (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan); and Innovative Governance: The Politics of Multilevel Policymaking, Ingeborg Tömmel and Amy Verdun (eds) (2009) (Boulder: Lynne Rienner), and Amy Verdun (ed) (2008), The European Union and Asia: What Is There to Learn? (New York: Nova). Her earlier books include Amy Verdun (ed) (2006) Britain and Canada and Their Large Neighboring Monetary Unions (New York: Nova). In Spring 2009 she was the recipient of the Craigdarroch Silver Medal Award for Excellence in Research, University of Victoria for her entire research. Since July 2010 she has been the co-editor of the Journal of Common Market Studies (with Michelle Cini).

Professor Verdun has been engaged in numerous activities that examine the relations of the EU with the rest of the world. She has organized conferences in China, Japan and South Africa, as well as in North America and Europe. She has served in various capacities in professional associations. From 2005-2009 she was Member of the Executive Committee of the US-based European Union Studies Association (served as its Secretary from 2007-2009 and its Treasurer from 2005-2007). From 1996-2006 she was Member of the Executive of the European Community Studies Association Canada (ECSA-C). From 2000-2006 she was the President of the International Political Science Association (IPSA) Research Committee 3 (RC-3) on European Unification. From 2003-2006 she was Member of the European University Institute Alumni Association (EUI AA) Executive Committee.

Return to top

Andreas Warntjen

University of Twente

Andreas Warntjen is Assistant Professor for European and International Politics at the University of Twente in The Netherlands. His main area of expertise is legislative decision-making in the European Union, focusing on decision-making in the Council. Andreas Warntjen has published in European Union Politics, the Journal of Common Market Studies and the Journal of European Public Policy, and has edited several books on the topic. He is also a member of the editorial board of the Journal of European Public Policy.

Return to top

Wolfgang Wessels

University of Cologne

Dr. Wolfgang Wessels is chairholder of the Jean Monnet Chair for Political Science at the University of Cologne. In 2004/2005 he held the Alfred Grosser Chair at the Sciences Po in Paris. In 2007 he was awarded the Jean Monnet Award in gold. Since 2011 he holds an Ad personam Jean Monnet Chair for Political Science.

His priorities in teaching and research include the political system of the European Union, the role of the EU in the international system, the deepening and widening of the EU, modes of governance as well as theories and strategies of European integration. Professor Wessels is co-editor of the Jahrbuch der Europäischen Union and the Europa von A-Z, Taschenbuch der Europäischen Integration and has published widely in leading journals and edited volumes. He is involved in several research and teaching networks, such as chairperson of the executive board of the Institut für Europäische Politik (IEP, Berlin) and of the Trans European Political Studies Association (TEPSA, Brussels). Since 1981 he is Visiting Professor at the College of Europe, Brugge and Natolin.

Professor Wessels has coordinated several research projects funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Thyssen and Volkswagen Foundations as well as by the European Commission. Presently he is coordinator of the Erasmus Academic Network (LISBOAN) with 67 partner institutions from all EU member states and beyond.

Return to top

Christopher Wlezien

Temple University

Christopher Wlezien is Professor of Political Science at Temple University. His primary, ongoing research develops a “thermostatic” model of public opinion and policy and examines the dynamic interrelationships between preferences for spending and budgetary policy in various domains. His books include Degrees of Democracy, published by Cambridge University Press and Who Gets Represented?, which was recently published by the Russell Sage Foundation. His other major area of research, on “The Timeline of Election Campaigns,” addresses the evolution of voter preferences over the course of the election cycle. It has been the subject of a number of articles and a book that is currently under review.

Return to top