@incollection{QuitzowBersalliLilliestametal.2023,
  author    = {Quitzow, Rainer and Bersalli, Germ{\´a}n and Lilliestam, Johan and Prontera, Andrea},
  title     = {Green recovery},
  series = {Handbook on European Union Climate Change Policy and Politics},
  booktitle = {Handbook on European Union Climate Change Policy and Politics},
  editor    = {Rayner, Tim and Szulecki, Kacper and Jordan, Andrew J. and Oberth{\"u}r, Sebastian},
  publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing},
  isbn      = {978-1-78990-698-1},
  doi       = {10.4337/9781789906981.00039},
  pages     = {351 -- 366},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {This chapter reviews how the European Union has fared in enabling a green recovery in the aftermath of the Covid-19 crisis, drawing comparisons to developments after the financial crisis. The chapter focuses on the European Commission and its evolving role in promoting decarbonisation efforts in its Member States, paying particular attention to its role in financing investments in low-carbon assets. It considers both the direct effects of green stimulus policies on decarbonisation in the EU and how these actions have shaped the capacities of the Commission as an actor in the field of climate and energy policy. The analysis reveals a significant expansion of the Commission's role compared to the period following the financial crisis. EU-level measures have provided incentives for Member States to direct large volumes of financing towards investments in climate-friendly assets. Nevertheless, the ultimate impact will largely be shaped by implementation at the national level.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{OllierMetzNunezJimenezetal.2022,
  author    = {Ollier, Lana and Metz, Florence and Nu{\~n}ez-Jimenez, Alejandro and Sp{\"a}th, Leonhard and Lilliestam, Johan},
  title     = {The European 2030 climate and energy package},
  series = {Policy sciences},
  volume    = {55},
  journal   = {Policy sciences},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer Science+Business Media LLC},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0032-2687},
  doi       = {10.1007/s11077-022-09447-5},
  pages     = {161 -- 184},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The European Union's 2030 climate and energy package introduced fundamental changes compared to its 2020 predecessor. These changes included a stronger focus on the internal market and an increased emphasis on technology-neutral decarbonization while simultaneously de-emphasizing the renewables target. This article investigates whether changes in domestic policy strategies of leading member states in European climate policy preceded the observed changes in EU policy. Disaggregating strategic change into changes in different elements (goals, objectives, instrumental logic), allows us to go beyond analyzing the relative prioritization of different goals, and to analyze how policy requirements for reaching those goals were dynamically redefined over time. To this end, we introduce a new method, which based on insights from social network analysis, enables us to systematically trace those strategic chances. We find that shifts in national strategies of the investigated member states preceded the shift in EU policy. In particular, countries reframed their understanding of supply security, and pushed for the internal electricity market also as a security measure to balance fluctuating renewables. Hence, the increasing focus on markets and market integration in the European 2030 package echoed the increasingly central role of the internal market for electricity supply security in national strategies. These findings also highlight that countries dynamically redefined their goals relative to the different phases of the energy transition.},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{MeinelGalbasHageboelling2023,
  author    = {Meinel, Christoph and Galbas, Michael and Hageb{\"o}lling, David},
  title     = {Digital sovereignty: insights from Germany's education sector},
  number    = {157},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-561-3},
  issn      = {1613-5652},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-59772},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-597723},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {1 -- 27},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Digital technology offers significant political, economic, and societal opportunities. At the same time, the notion of digital sovereignty has become a leitmotif in German discourse: the state's capacity to assume its responsibilities and safeguard society's - and individuals' - ability to shape the digital transformation in a self-determined way. The education sector is exemplary for the challenge faced by Germany, and indeed Europe, of harnessing the benefits of digital technology while navigating concerns around sovereignty. It encompasses education as a core public good, a rapidly growing field of business, and growing pools of highly sensitive personal data. The report describes pathways to mitigating the tension between digitalization and sovereignty at three different levels - state, economy, and individual - through the lens of concrete technical projects in the education sector: the HPI Schul-Cloud (state sovereignty), the MERLOT data spaces (economic sovereignty), and the openHPI platform (individual sovereignty).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HeckeFuhrWolfs2021,
  author    = {Hecke, Steven van and Fuhr, Harald and Wolfs, Wouter},
  title     = {The politics of crisis management by regional and international organizations in fighting against a global pandemic},
  series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  volume    = {87},
  journal   = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Sage},
  address   = {Los Angeles, Calif. [u.a.]},
  issn      = {0020-8523},
  doi       = {10.1177/0020852320984516},
  pages     = {672 -- 690},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Despite new challenges like climate change and digitalization, global and regional organizations recently went through turbulent times due to a lack of support from several of their member states. Next to this crisis of multilateralism, the COVID-19 pandemic now seems to question the added value of international organizations for addressing global governance issues more specifically. This article analyses this double challenge that several organizations are facing and compares their ways of managing the crisis by looking at their institutional and political context, their governance structure, and their behaviour during the pandemic until June 2020. More specifically, it will explain the different and fragmented responses of the World Health Organization, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund/World Bank. With the aim of understanding the old and new problems that these international organizations are trying to solve, this article argues that the level of autonomy vis-a-vis the member states is crucial for understanding the politics of crisis management. <br /> Points for practitioners <br /> As intergovernmental bodies, international organizations require authorization by their member states. Since they also need funding for their operations, different degrees of autonomy also matter for reacting to emerging challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential for international organizations is limited, though through proactive and bold initiatives, they can seize the opportunity of the crisis and partly overcome institutional and political constraints.},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{MeinelGalbasHageboelling2023,
  author    = {Meinel, Christoph and Galbas, Michael and Hageb{\"o}lling, David},
  title     = {Digitale Souver{\"a}nit{\"a}t: Erkenntnisse aus dem deutschen Bildungssektor},
  number    = {156},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-560-6},
  issn      = {1613-5652},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-59513},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-595138},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {1 -- 29},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Digitale Technologien bieten erhebliche politische, wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Chancen. Zugleich ist der Begriff digitale Souver{\"a}nit{\"a}t zu einem Leitmotiv im deutschen Diskurs {\"u}ber digitale Technologien geworden: das heißt, die F{\"a}higkeit des Staates, seine Verantwortung wahrzunehmen und die Bef{\"a}higung der Gesellschaft - und des Einzelnen - sicherzustellen, die digitale Transformation selbstbestimmt zu gestalten. Exemplarisch f{\"u}r die Herausforderung in Deutschland und Europa, die Vorteile digitaler Technologien zu nutzen und gleichzeitig Souver{\"a}nit{\"a}tsbedenken zu ber{\"u}cksichtigen, steht der Bildungssektor. Er umfasst Bildung als zentrales {\"o}ffentliches Gut, ein schnell aufkommendes Gesch{\"a}ftsfeld und wachsende Best{\"a}nde an hochsensiblen personenbezogenen Daten. Davon ausgehend beschreibt der Bericht Wege zur Entsch{\"a}rfung des Spannungsverh{\"a}ltnisses zwischen Digitalisierung und Souver{\"a}nit{\"a}t auf drei verschiedenen Ebenen - Staat, Wirtschaft und Individuum - anhand konkreter technischer Projekte im Bildungsbereich: die HPI Schul-Cloud (staatliche Souver{\"a}nit{\"a}t), die MERLOT-Datenr{\"a}ume (wirtschaftliche Souver{\"a}nit{\"a}t) und die openHPI-Plattform (individuelle Souver{\"a}nit{\"a}t).},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{EbersHochRosenkranzetal.2021,
  author    = {Ebers, Martin and Hoch, Veronica R. S. and Rosenkranz, Frank and Ruschemeier, Hannah and Steinr{\"o}tter, Bj{\"o}rn},
  title     = {The European Commission's proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act},
  series = {J : multidisciplinary scientific journal},
  volume    = {4},
  journal   = {J : multidisciplinary scientific journal},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2571-8800},
  doi       = {10.3390/j4040043},
  pages     = {589 -- 603},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {On 21 April 2021, the European Commission presented its long-awaited proposal for a Regulation "laying down harmonized rules on Artificial Intelligence", the so-called "Artificial Intelligence Act" (AIA). This article takes a critical look at the proposed regulation. After an introduction (1), the paper analyzes the unclear preemptive effect of the AIA and EU competences (2), the scope of application (3), the prohibited uses of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (4), the provisions on high-risk AI systems (5), the obligations of providers and users (6), the requirements for AI systems with limited risks (7), the enforcement system (8), the relationship of the AIA with the existing legal framework (9), and the regulatory gaps (10). The last section draws some final conclusions (11).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BobzienKalleitner2020,
  author    = {Bobzien, Licia and Kalleitner, Fabian},
  title     = {Attitudes towards European financial solidarity during the Covid-19 pandemic},
  series = {European societies},
  volume    = {23},
  journal   = {European societies},
  number    = {Sup. 1},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1461-6696},
  doi       = {10.1080/14616696.2020.1836669},
  pages     = {S791 -- S804},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Whilst the Covid-19 pandemic affects all European countries, the ways in which these countries are prepared for the health and subsequent economic crisis varies considerably. Financial solidarity within the European Union (EU) could mitigate some of these inequalities but depends upon the support of the citizens of individual member states for such policies. This paper studies attitudes of the Austrian population - a net-contributor to the European budget - towards financial solidarity using two waves of the Austrian Corona Panel Project collected in May and June 2020. We find that individuals (i) who are less likely to consider the Covid-19 pandemic as a national economic threat, (ii) who believe that Austria benefits from supporting other countries, and (iii) who prefer the crisis to be organized more centrally at EU-level show higher support for European financial solidarity. Using fixed effects models, we further show that perceiving economic threats and preferring central crisis management also explain attitude dynamics within individuals over time. We conclude that cost-benefit perceptions are important determinants for individual support of European financial solidarity during the Covid-19 pandemic.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Eichel2022,
  type      = {Master Thesis},
  author    = {Eichel, Benjamin},
  title     = {Die Reform des Gemeinsamen Europ{\"a}ischen Asylsystems},
  series = {MEGA-Schriftenreihe},
  journal   = {MEGA-Schriftenreihe},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {2701-391X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-55767},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-557675},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {III, 51},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Die Reform des Gemeinsamen Europ{\"a}ischen Asylsystems (GEAS) ist eine der gr{\"o}ßten Herausforderungen und eine der dr{\"a}ngendsten Aufgaben der EU und ihrer Mitgliedstaaten. Dabei stellt die Frage der „gerechten Lastenteilung" in der Asyl- und Migrationspolitik den Zusammenhalt der EU auf eine Zerreißprobe. Seit den gescheiterten Verhandlungen {\"u}ber die GEAS-Reform 2016/2017 versuchen die Mitgliedstaaten, einen Ausgleich zwischen den Grunds{\"a}tzen der Solidarit{\"a}t und Verantwortlichkeit zu finden, wie es Art. 80 AEUV f{\"u}r das GEAS vorgibt. Je nach Interessenlage verbirgt sich dahinter aber ein sehr unterschiedliches Verst{\"a}ndnis. Diese Arbeit untersucht die Reformbem{\"u}hungen beim GEAS nach Vorlage der Kommissionsvorschl{\"a}ge im September 2020 und beleuchtet die divergierenden Interessenlagen der Mitgliedstaaten hinsichtlich Aufnahme und Verteilung von Gefl{\"u}chteten. Ziel der Arbeit ist, eine Aussage {\"u}ber die Erfolgsaussichten einer Einigung {\"u}ber die Grunds{\"a}tze der Solidarit{\"a}t und Verantwortung zu treffen. Dazu werden zun{\"a}chst die Verpflichtungen im Asylrecht basierend auf internationalen {\"U}bereinkommen wie der Genfer Fl{\"u}chtlingskonvention dargestellt. An-schließend werden GEAS und Dublin-System, das dem Ersteinreisestaat die Zust{\"a}ndigkeit f{\"u}r die Asylverfahren zuschreibt, und die Ursachen f{\"u}r sein Scheitern analysiert. Diese Verantwortungsteilung, die zu einer {\"u}berproportionalen Belastung der Mitgliedstaaten im S{\"u}den f{\"u}hrt, ist Kristallisationspunkt f{\"u}r Konflikte, gegenseitigen Vorw{\"u}rfe und Misstrau-en zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten. Infolge einer tats{\"a}chlichen {\"U}berlastung und teilweise selbst verschuldeten Unm{\"o}glichkeit, die GEAS-Verpflichtungen zu erf{\"u}llen, rufen die S{\"u}dstaaten nach Unterst{\"u}tzung aus dem Norden und betreiben teilweise sogar eine Politik des Laissez-Passer. Durch teilweise katastrophale Zust{\"a}nde bei Verfahren, Unterbringung und Versorgung der Gefl{\"u}chteten entstehen R{\"u}ckf{\"u}hrungshindernisse und Druck auf die Zielstaaten, mehr Solidarit{\"a}t zu leisten. Ausgehend von diesem Befund wird der Bedeutungsgehalt des Solidarit{\"a}tsprinzips in Art. 80 AEUV in normativer und deskriptiver Hinsicht untersucht. Normativ handelt es sich dabei um eine abstrakte Rechtspflicht zur gegenseitigen Unterst{\"u}tzung, deren Ausgestaltung im politischen Ermessen der Mitgliedstaaten liegt. Deskriptiv kann unter „Solidarit{\"a}t" der Zweck verstanden werden, dass die Verwirklichung individueller Interessen einer kollektiven Anstrengung bedarf, die wiederum das Gemeinwohl f{\"o}rdert und somit im Interesse aller liegt. Dem folgend m{\"u}ssten alle Mitgliedstaaten ein Interesse an der Bew{\"a}ltigung der Herausforderungen der Migration nach Europa haben. Die Interessen der Mitgliedstaten deuten aber auf etwas anderes hin. Die durch die Ank{\"u}nfte von Schutzsuchenden aus dem S{\"u}den stark belasteten Mittelmeeranrainer wie Griechenland und Italien fordern eine Abkehr vom Dublin-System. Die migrationskritischen Visegr{\´a}d-Staaten verweigern im Grunde jede Unterst{\"u}tzung bei der Aufnahme und berufen sich darauf, dass sie ihre rechtlichen Verpflichtungen erf{\"u}llen. Staaten, die lange Zeit eine liberale Migrationspolitik verfolgten und beliebte Ziell{\"a}nder waren wie Schweden, ringen nach der Migrationskrise 2015/2016 mit sich auf der Suche nach einem migrationspolitischen Kurs, der rechts-populistische Kr{\"a}fte nicht noch weiter erstarken l{\"a}sst. Auch die Hauptziell{\"a}nder Deutschland und Frankreich versuchen den jeweiligen innenpolitischen Diskursen entsprechend, die Sekund{\"a}rmigration zu verhindern und wollen auf unterschiedliche Weise die Außengrenzstaaten unterst{\"u}tzen, wobei Deutschland die Umverteilung aller unterst{\"u}tzt. Die im September 2020 vorgelegten Vorschl{\"a}ge der Kommission versuchen, den unterschiedlichen Interessen Rechnung zu tragen. Durch die Schaffung eines Grenzverfahrens soll die Anzahl der in die EU einreisenden und zu verteilenden Gefl{\"u}chteten reduziert werden. Durch {\"A}nderung der Dublin-Kriterien soll die Zust{\"a}ndigkeit der potentiellen Ziell{\"a}nder erweitert werden, um die S{\"u}dl{\"a}nder zu entlasten und der Sekund{\"a}rmigration entgegenzuwirken. Mit der gleichen Zielrichtung soll auf Grundlage eines neuen Solidarit{\"a}tsmechanismus eine Umverteilung unbegleiteter Minderj{\"a}hriger und aus Seenot Geretteter erfolgen. In Krisenzeiten soll daraus eine generelle Umverteilung aller Schutzsuchenden erwachsen, wobei Solidarit{\"a}t weiterhin auf verschiedene Art und Weise geleistet werden k{\"o}nnen soll. Angesichts der Verhandlungen w{\"a}hrend der deutschen EU-Ratspr{\"a}sidentschaft und des er-reichten Zwischenergebnisses besteht Skepsis, dass die Mitgliedstaaten sich bald auf eine GEAS-Reform einigen werden. Dazu liegen die Interessen der Mitgliedstaaten auch hinsichtlich der Solidarit{\"a}t zu weit auseinander. Zudem stellt sich die in Hinblick auf die europ{\"a}ische Integration und die Zukunft der EU besorgniserregende Frage, worin das im Interesse aller liegende Gemeinwohl in der Asylpolitik liegen soll, das die gemeinsame Kraftanstrengung zu einem individuellen Interesse jedes Einzelnen werden l{\"a}sst. Denn anders als bei der Schaffung des Schengen-Raums als Raum ohne Binnengrenzen sind Wohlstandsgewinne von der Aufnahme Gefl{\"u}chteter vorerst nicht zu erwarten.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Paasch2022,
  author    = {Paasch, Jana},
  title     = {Revisiting policy preferences and capacities in the EU},
  series = {Journal of common market studies : JCMS},
  volume    = {60},
  journal   = {Journal of common market studies : JCMS},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0021-9886},
  doi       = {10.1111/jcms.13286},
  pages     = {783 -- 800},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Research on multi-level implementation of EU legislation has almost exclusively focused on the national level, while little is known about the role of subnational authorities. Nevertheless, it is a prerequisite for the functioning of the European Union that all member states and their subnational authorities apply and enforce EU legislation in due time. I address this research gap and take a closer look at the legal transposition process in the German regional states. Using a novel data set comprising detailed information on about 700 subnational measures, I show that state-level variables, such as political preferences and ministerial resources, account for variation in the timing of legal transposition and repeatedly lead to subnational delay. To conclude, the paper addresses the role of subnational authorities in the EU multi-level system and points to their interest in shaping legal transposition in order to counterbalance their loss of competences to the national level.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchmidtWellenburg2018,
  author    = {Schmidt-Wellenburg, Christian},
  title     = {Struggling over crisis},
  series = {Historical Social Research},
  volume    = {43},
  journal   = {Historical Social Research},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {GESIS, Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences},
  address   = {Cologne},
  issn      = {0172-6404},
  doi       = {10.12759/hsr.43.2018.3.147-188},
  pages     = {147 -- 188},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions." Following the premise of this quotation attributed to Winston Churchill, varying perceptions of the European crisis by academic economists and their structural homology to economists' positions in the field of economics are examined. The dataset analysed using specific multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and hierarchical agglomerative clustering (HAC) comprises information on the careers of 480 German-speaking economists and on statements they made concerning crisis-related issues. It can be shown that the main structural differences in the composition and amount of scientific and academic capital held by economists as well as their age and degree of transnationalisation are linked to how they see the crisis: as a national sovereign debt crisis, as a European banking crisis, or as a crisis of European integration and institutions.},
  language  = {en}
}