This contribution introduces the forthcoming JCMS Annual Review (AR) of 2023, entitled ‘The End of an EU Political Cycle: Actors, Challenges, and Debates’. First, we illustrate our vision for the AR as a pivotal platform for interdisciplinary analysis and thoughtful reflection on EU studies, embracing methodological pluralism and inclusive authorships. The overarching rationale for this edition is rooted in the critical juncture of the 2024 European elections. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the EU political cycle that started with the 2019 elections, delving into the roles played by its institutions and political actors. With this foundation, we aim to scrutinise the responses formulated by the EU and its member states to address domestic and geopolitical challenges and, therefore, to contribute to a richer comprehension of the multifaceted dimensions inherent in the concluding phase of this EU's political cycle. Second, we describe the structure of the AR, the specific contributions and the authors involved. We will also present the main innovations, such as the new sections ‘Elections in the mirror’ and ‘Quo Vadis Europe?’.

This paper delves into the leadership dynamics at the apex of the administrative hierarchy within the European Parliament, seeking to comprehend the degree to which administrative leadership has played a role in shaping both the institution and the broader political framework of the European Parliament. Drawing on an institutional approach, administrative leadership is defined as behaviour that moulds the institutional character of an organization and contributes to the development of a polity. The article also posits that leadership is context-dependent and influenced by the political development of the European Parliament. Based on high-level interviews with Secretary Generals who led the European Parliament's administration from 1986 to 2022, the findings indicate that administrative leadership has an institutional character, but it varies according to the historical political context of the European Parliament. The conclusion underscores the necessity of studying political and administrative leadership together as public leadership to understand how the European Parliament leads in the European Union.

Since its inception in 1994, the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) has been furthering European integration by providing an institutional link between the European Union (EU) on the one hand and its regions and municipalities on the other. Similar to the Economic and Social Committee, the CoR is a purely consultative body within the EU’s system of governance. Although it has attracted some scholarly attention, surprisingly little interest has been paid to its administrative personnel, i.e., the people that “make the CoR run”. Clearly, the administration is relatively small counting only a little more than 600 staff,. As there are only up to six plenary sessions annually bringing together the elected representatives of CoR, however, we assume that the CoR-based staffs plays a significant role in not only running the day-to-day business of the organization, but also effectively forging the links between the EU, its regions, and municipalities. How do CoR staff contribute to shaping both intra- as well as inter-organizational dynamics both at the level of the EU’s institutions, member states, regional and local administrations? How do they perceive their role? Drawing on new data from a survey and semi-structured interviews conducted with CoR administrative staff, this paper seeks to gauge the scope of autonomy CoR civil servants actually command. The paper thereby contributes to the emerging scholarly field of international public administration.

In the 1990s, Europe widely adopted New Public Management (NPM) principles. These principles reinforced traditional Weberian administrative ideals such as impartiality, legality, and neutrality within bureaucracies. Mechanisms were also implemented to assess the competency and efficiency of public administration. However, the reception of Public Administrative reforms varied among countries, reflecting differences in cultural and historical trajectories. This caused different organizations of public policies among States. Recent scholarship has found that institutional and administrative factors may also impact asylum policies in Europe. This reaffirms that States remain the primary implementers and defenders of the international protection system. However, these studies provide only a partial explanation to the complex environment surrounding asylum decisions.The different formal structures involved in decision-making should also be taken into account.

The paper examines how administrative structures affect decision-making in national asylum systems. The characteristics of these administrations are analysed using contingency theory, which is commonly associated with organisational studies but is also firmly rooted in public administration studies. Thus, the structural determinants used in the study have been extensively documented. The quality of Refugee Status Determination (RSD) is influenced by several factors, including political isolation, availability of procedural aid, quality monitoring, pluralist decision-making, administrative capacity, and historical experience in processing asylum claims.

To analyse the factors above, I use a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) approach. QCA is suitable for examining the complex nature of public administrations, addressing structural and cultural complexities. It combines elements of both quantitative and qualitative methods, making it ideal for comparing cases with a homogeneous goal, i.e. process asylum claims in line with international established norms. QCA is valuable for creating taxonomies, summarizing data, evaluating theories, and generating new insights, aligning well with the reliance on middle-range theories in Public Administration.The goal of this paper is to establish a taxonomy of European asylum offices and their decision-making structures, followed by the formulation of hypotheses for subsequent comparative research.