Do Transboundary Crisis Network Managers Learn from Past Experiences? Comparing the EU Responses to Two Cyclones in Mozambique
Carlos Bravo-Laguna
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Spain
Despite the increasing scholarly attention that relational dynamics during the coordination of transboundary crisis responses have gained in recent years, we still have too little evidence concerning the evolution of the structures in charge of managing these incidents. To address this literature gap, this study examines the humanitarian responses to two emergencies caused by natural disasters considered among the deadliest that have affected the Southern Hemisphere in recorded history, namely Cyclones Idai and Kenneth in 2019 and Cyclone Freddy in 2023. More specifically, it will compare the policy networks involved in the reactions to these episodes in Mozambique: the fact that both cyclones affected the same region in two different periods allows for putting the focus of comparison on the differences across the crisis networks. The focus of analysis will specifically be placed in the way in which the EU Member States and supranational organizations coordinated themselves and with other actors during these episodes. While longitudinal crisis network studies are rare due to their demanding data collection requirements, they allow for linking structural changes over time to different policy outcomes. To do so, this paper relies on a combination of Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs) and semi-structured interviews. Data was extracted from a survey distributed among individuals involved in the management of these episodes. This study has relevant implications for practitioners and theorists alike, since it provides a greater understanding of the extent to which transboundary crisis network managers replicate successful patterns and apply lessons learned from previous incidents.
Inter-system Policy Learning by Norway for Public Sector Innovation
Nishat Arefeen Mondal
Inland University of Applied Sciences, Norway
At the heart of this exploration is Norway's selective participation in various policy forums. The study methodically maps Norway's participation in policy learning forums, highlighting its engagement strategies, and analysing the facilitative role of EU policy modes in this context. This approach provides a lens to understand Norway's strategies in adopting and adapting innovative practices and policies in the public sector by looking into any missing-out scenarios in terms of learning aspects. The paper examines the implications of Norway's selective participation in different policy learning forums for policy learning. It explores the degrees of integration of Norway into EU policies from a non-membership perspective by linking differentiated integration with policy learning.
The paper will examine the opportunities for policy learning available to Norway as a member of the OECD and the Nordic cooperation, a non-member of the EU, and through bilateral cooperation, as well as the interconnection among all these forms of learning. The research question for this paper will be: do the policy learning opportunities provided by the EU, the OECD, the Nordic cooperation, and bilateral cooperation overlap or complement each other?
This paper aims to develop an understanding of policy learning opportunities for a country that holds a unique position in the EU and is a strong innovator among the member states of the OECD and Nordic cooperation. Since all these platforms provide scope to learn and apply learnings in various sectors, it is important to determine whether these opportunities are complementing or overlapping each other and how. Empirically, this paper will focus on the EU’s policy process (with its white papers, consultations, and impact assessments) for policy learning. It will also examine the OECD’s benchmarking, peer review, and standard setting to understand the policy learning scopes for Norway. Later, mapping the overlaps or complements will lead to a better understanding of whether participation in policy areas of the OECD, the Nordic cooperation, or any other bilateral partnership is sufficient to cover or provide the policy learning possibilities from the absence of full EU membership.
Learning To Care? Retracing The Evolution Of The Crisis-Solidarity Nexus In ECB Speeches.
Lorenzo Lombardi1, Federico Salvati2
1School of International Studies, University of Trento; 2SCRIPT cluster of excellence, Freie Universität Berlin
The study explores the evolving concept of financial solidarity in the European Central Bank (ECB). Financial solidarity played a pivotal role in political discourses during two major crises of the past decade — the sovereign debt crisis (2010) and the COVID-19 pandemic (2020). Most importantly, the different policymaking strategies enacted during the crises suggest a shift in the underlying interpretation of the concept that calls for explanation. In our paper, we are going to investigate how policy failures, crisis legacies, and authority contestation contributed to a change of approach from the ECB. The research aims to analyze the ECB's discursive construction of financial solidarity through the lenses of adaptive learning, considering both endogenous (past policy experiences) and exogenous (political system responsiveness to society) processes of change. Using Structural and assisted Topic Modelling (STM and KeyATM) on the ECB corpus of speeches, the study traces semantic shifts towards solidarity. In addition, process tracing and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are employed to link discourse practices to policy outcomes, and analyze relevant cases of meanings’ construction and/or contestation. The mixed methodology enhances the understanding of institutional change through learning, addressing the inherent shortcomings of each, single approach.
Grounding Representation in the Experience of Member State Representatives in the Council of the European Union
Kamil Ławniczak
University of Warsaw, Poland
The Council of the European Union gathers representatives of the EU member states, who meet and negotiate in many different bodies at several levels, from junior diplomats to ministers. Despite the diversity among the member states, their representatives in the Council prove to be very effective at reaching decisions. Most issues are already decided before reaching the ministers and usually there are either no votes against or very limited opposition.
In this paper, I focus on the way member state officials understand representation. Rather that defining the concept of representation “from above”, I want to approach it “from below” and ground it in the experience and understandings of national officials who work in the Council’s preparatory bodies. This type of interpretive approach to concepts is called “elucidation” (cf. Schaffer 2015). Empirically, the paper is based on in-depth interviews conducted during my ongoing field research in Brussels.
In order to find out what meanings the officials associate with representation, I ask how they perceive their role as representatives, who they think they represent, and if there are any tensions between the aforementioned tendency to reach consensus and their representative duties. In this last aspect, I use practice-oriented framework, looking at both consensus-seeking and representation as social practices, or socially recognisable, patterned, meaningful action which can be performed at varying degrees of competence.
|
