In the age of polarisation, political ideologies have become increasingly important factors shaping participation in EU policymaking. Although previous research has shown that ideology and political values influence government voting behaviour in the Council, much less is known about how ideology impacts government preparation for and participation in Council negotiations as existing work focuses solely on select highly salient issues. This paper aims to alleviate this gap by analysing both how negotiating mandates are made and represented in the Council across different policy areas. It uses Hungary as a case study because the hegemonic positions of Viktor Orbán’s autocratic, populist, Eurosceptic, and radical right Fidesz-KNDP coalition make Hungary a most-likely case of government ideology having an impact. Drawing on over 30 semi-structured elite interviews with government officials with diverse policy backgrounds and institutional affiliations, the paper shows that the characteristics of the policy field and the proposals’ connection to domestically sensitive topics fundamentally determines how Hungary approaches negotiations. If the proposal relates to a policy area where Member States retain competencies and has a compulsory effect, or the content is politically sensitive, then Hungary’s approach is determined at the highest political level, and the country participates in the policymaking process in line with the findings of the populist unpolitics literature. In contrast, when passing Council recommendations or when the proposal does not involve a domestically politicised topic, horizontal political considerations play little to no role and the country’s mandate and negotiation strategy are determined by experts.

The article investigates the underrepresentation of certain Member States (MS) within the European Commission (EC) and explores the broader challenges of achieving geographical balance in EU recruitment. Drawing on the theory of representative bureaucracy, the study systematises factors that shape the attractiveness of EU careers, specifically in the EC. Using qualitative data from 14 expert interviews and an analysis of action plans on geographic balance adopted by the Commission in agreement with each underrepresented state in 2023, the article identifies key factors behind the lack of attractiveness of EU careers in the EC.

The findings challenge the ‘rejection hypothesis’, which interprets low participation as disinterest. Instead, the article suggests that underrepresentation stems from institutional pathologies, fragmented national support, procedural complexity, and opportunity structures that fail to generate motivation. Therefore, the lack of applications is less a matter of rejection than a structural failure of conditions. When pursued in isolation, neither EU-level reforms nor national strategies adequately address the imbalance; solutions require their alignment, combining institutional flexibility, stronger national support, and proactive outreach. Recruitment in the EC is not only a technical procedure, but also a symbolic act. Balancing merit-based standards with inclusiveness across diverse national contexts exposes unresolved questions about what counts as ‘fair’ representation and emphasises the unique legitimacy dilemmas facing supranational administrations.

Problems of governance have long been central to discussions on metropolitan areas. However, certain aspects have received considerably less attention, particularly the interactions between politicians and bureaucrats and the broader political-administrative dynamics within metropolitan contexts. This paper compares political-administrative relations in Czech and Italian metropolitan areas. In both countries, metropolitan areas were established relatively recently, which allows us to examine the dynamics of relations between politicians and civil servants from the moment of their creation. The two countries represent very different cases. Czech metropolitan areas have a very vague institutional and legislative framework, whereas Italian metropolitan cities are exceptionally well-grounded in legislation, even enshrined in the constitution. Despite the completely different status of metropolitan cities in the two countries, the outcome is the same – a technocratic style of governance, in which politicians show little interest in new actors in governance. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with both politicians and civil servants, we suggest that the prominent influence of civil servants is not only due to their specialized knowledge and experience, including expertise in accessing and managing EU funding, but also reflects politicians’ limited interest in the metropolitan agenda. This limited engagement appears to result from a focus on quick economic gains and challenges in managing a complex policy landscape that exceeds the confines of their electoral districts. By applying a “most different systems, similar outcomes” framework, this study contributes to the theoretical debate on metropolitan governance and technocracy, demonstrating that institutional and political diversity does not preclude convergence toward expert-led models. The findings underscore the trade-offs inherent in metropolitan governance between democratic participation and technocratic efficiency.

Representatives of the member states in the Council of the European Union meet and negotiate in an array of preparatory bodies at several levels, from junior diplomats to ambassadors. They fix problems and ensure efficiency of the mechanism, so that most issues are already decided before reaching level of ministers, who formally approve every Council decision.

In this paper, I focus on the way member state officials understand representation. I consider representation to be a social practice, or socially recognisable, patterned, meaningful action which can be performed at varying degrees of competence. Rather that abstractly defining the concept of representation before undertaking research, I ground it in the experience and understandings of national officials who work in the Council’s preparatory bodies.

Empirically, the paper is based on the analysis of 38 interviews conducted with officials from the EU members states working in the preparatory bodies of the Council. In order to find out what meanings the officials associate with representation, I ask what is their role as representatives, how do they perceive their autonomy, who they think they represent, and if there are tensions either inherent to the practice of representation or emerging between their representative duties and the need to solve problems and reach decisions as the Council. Preliminary results show a range of understandings relevant to each of their questions. Seeing representation as a practice allows me to also inquire into the criteria of competence applicable to the performance of representation, as well as question various dual opposition present in interviewees’ accounts.

Despite the growing role of European Union (EU) agencies in EU governance, we still lack empirical knowledge about their staff members (Benz et al., 2016). Yet these individuals are central to enacting the agencies’ mandate and to implement EU policies in a multi-level administration. Employees from EU agencies differ from officials in core EU institutions: they are not socialized within Brussels-based institutions, many come from national administrations, and hold temporary contracts (Egeberg & Trondal, 2017). This hybrid position may heighten their awareness of national differences and make them more inclined to use nationality-based cues to navigate their work environment and interactions, such as national stereotypes. Against this background, this paper aims to offer a double contribution to the literature: a mapping of staff working across EU agencies and of the national stereotypes circulating among them, shedding light on the coexistence of national, organizational, and European identities.

We ask the following research questions: Who are the staff members of EU agencies? What national stereotypes do they attribute to colleagues? How are these stereotypes related to staff members’ educational and professional backgrounds, their resources and position within the agency?

Theoretically, the paper combines insights from EU sociology and social psychology. National stereotypes are understood as automatic cognitive shortcuts through which individuals attribute traits to social groups (Correll et al., 2010) based on their nationality. Integrating this concept with a sociological lens, we study stereotypes as embedded in an organizational setting. By examining the characteristics and profiles of the agencies’ staff, the paper also explores whether EU agencies constitute a distinct sub-field of the European bureaucratic (Eurocratic) field (Georgakakis & Rowell, 2013), in which national perceptions might play a specific role when employees are enacting the agency’s mandate.

The analysis draws on an original observational survey conducted across 32 EU agencies (operational and regulatory) in January-March 2026. The survey collects socio-demographic data, information on positions within the agency, and open-ended descriptions of typical traits associated with colleagues from four selected nationalities – widely represented within EU agencies: Germany, France, Italy, and Romania. The findings contribute to ongoing debates on the performation of European and Bureaucratic identities, as well as broader research in EU sociology and public administration.