@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} } @misc{Lang2020, type = {Master Thesis}, author = {Lang, Simon}, title = {Die Neuausrichtung der Clusterpolitik der Europ{\"a}ischen Union im Rahmen der Europa 2020 Strategie und ihre Wirkung in den Mitgliedsstaaten Deutschland und Frankreich}, series = {MEGA-Schriftenreihe}, journal = {MEGA-Schriftenreihe}, number = {3}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {2701-391X}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-47286}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-472860}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {XXII, 88}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Clusterpolitik als Politikfeld an der Schnittstelle von Industrie-, Innovations- (F\&E) und Regionalpolitik entwickelte sich Mitte der 1990er Jahre zuerst in einigen EU Mitgliedsstaaten, darunter Deutschland. Mit einem Abstand von rund 10 Jahren begann die Herausbildung als eigenes Politikfeld in Frankreich. Die europ{\"a}ische Ebene begann ebenfalls erst ab Mitte der 2000er Jahre im Zusammenhang mit der Lissabon Strategie sich intensiver mit Clustern und Clusterpolitik zu besch{\"a}ftigen und entwickelte ab 2008 Jahren einen systematischen Politikansatz. Der Anstoß zur Politikfeldentwicklung auf dem Gebiet der Clusterpolitik ging in Europa also gerade nicht von der EU-Ebene aus. Auch wenn das Politikfeld „EU-Clusterpolitik" einem erheblichen Wandel im Zuge der Europa 2020 Strategie unterlag, findet eine Koordinierung der mitgliedsstaatlichen Politiken durch die EU-Ebene bislang nicht statt und ist - soweit ersichtlich - von Seiten der EU auch nicht angestrebt. Die EU Clusterpolitik ist vielmehr komplement{\"a}r und unterst{\"u}tzend zu den nationalen Politiken ausgerichtet. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird aufgezeigt, dass sich die drei clusterpolitischen Arenen EU, Deutschland, Frankreich weitestgehend unabh{\"a}ngig voneinander entwickelten und jeweils eigenen von unterschiedlichen Institutionen, Kontexten, Traditionen und Pfadabh{\"a}ngigkeiten bestimmten Logiken folgten. Sowohl der vertikale als auch der horizontale Verflechtungsgrad ist gering zwischen EU und Mitgliedsstaaten. Verflechtungsmuster beginnen gerade erst sich auszudifferenzieren. Jedoch sind Policy-Transfer oder sogar Policy-Learning Prozesse zwischen den drei Arenen EU, Deutschland und Frankreich schon in Ans{\"a}tzen erkennbar. Es gibt deutliche Unterschiede in den Clusterpolitiken Frankreichs und Deutschlands. Clusterpolitik wird in Deutschland in erster Linie auf Ebene der L{\"a}nder konzipiert und implementiert, w{\"a}hrend sie in Frankreich nach wie vor vom Zentralstaat gesteuert wird - wenn auch mit zunehmend konzeptioneller Beteiligung der regionalen Ebene. Die Neuausrichtung der EU Clusterpolitik im Rahmen der Europa 2020 Strategie fand in Frankreich eine deutlich st{\"a}rkere Resonanz als in Deutschland. Die Handlungslogik hinter den clusterpolitischen Maßnahmen der EU mit Bezug zur Lissabon-Strategie lag in der Verbesserung der Innovationsf{\"a}higkeit - die Handlungslogik der clusterpolitischen Maßnahmen im Rahmen der Europa 2020 Strategie liegt in der Modernisierung der industriellen Basis Europas durch Entwicklung neuer Wertsch{\"o}pfungsketten. Die EU Clusterpolitik unterlag insofern einem erheblichen Wandel.}, language = {de} } @article{DavydchykMehlhausenPriesmeyerTkocz2017, author = {Davydchyk, Maria and Mehlhausen, Thomas and Priesmeyer-Tkocz, Weronika}, title = {The price of success, the benefit of setbacks}, series = {Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies}, volume = {97}, journal = {Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0016-3287}, doi = {10.1016/j.futures.2017.06.004}, pages = {35 -- 46}, year = {2017}, abstract = {This article explores the various futures of relations between the European Union (EU) and Ukraine. After distilling two major drivers we construct a future compass in order to conceive of four futures of relations between the EU and Ukraine. Our scenarios aim to challenge deep-rooted assumptions on the EU's neighbourhood with Ukraine: How will the politico-economic challenges in the European countries influence the EU's approach towards the East? Will more EU engagement in Ukraine contribute to enduring peace? Does peace always come with stability? Which prospects does the idea of Intermarium have? Are the pivotal transformation players in Ukraine indeed oligarchs or rather small- and medium-sized entrepreneurs? After presenting our scenarios, we propose indicators to know in the years to come, along which path future relations do develop. By unearthing surprising developments we hope to provoke innovative thoughts on Eastern Europe in times of post truth societies, confrontation between states and hybrid warfare.}, language = {en} } @misc{SchmidtWellenburg2017, author = {Schmidt-Wellenburg, Christian}, title = {Europeanisation, stateness, and professions}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {99}, issn = {1867-5808}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-412590}, pages = {28}, year = {2017}, abstract = {The article explores Europeanisation as an effect of European political integration, a process driven by struggles over the legitimate political and social order that is to prevail in Europe. Firstly, an analytic framework is constructed, drawing on insights from Pierre Bourdieu's work on similar struggles over nation-stateness. Secondly, the mechanisms identified are used to assess the role played by economic experts and expertise in the process of European political integration. It is argued that concepts arising from economic disciplines, agents educated in economics, and practising economic professionals influence European political integration and have benefited from Europeanisation initiated by this process. Special emphasis is placed on strategies of integrating Europe by law or by market, on governing Europe using economic expertise, on the role played by economic academia in researching and objectifying Europe, and on staffing European institutions with economists.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Patz2013, author = {Patz, Ronny}, title = {Information flows in the context of EU policy-making : affiliation networks and the post-2012 reform of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-70732}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Information flows in EU policy-making are heavily dependent on personal networks, both within the Brussels sphere but also reaching outside the narrow limits of the Belgian capital. These networks develop for example in the course of formal and informal meetings or at the sidelines of such meetings. A plethora of committees at European, transnational and regional level provides the basis for the establishment of pan-European networks. By studying affiliation to those committees, basic network structures can be uncovered. These affiliation network structures can then be used to predict EU information flows, assuming that certain positions within the network are advantageous for tapping into streams of information while others are too remote and peripheral to provide access to information early enough. This study has tested those assumptions for the case of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy for the time after 2012. Through the analysis of an affiliation network based on participation in 10 different fisheries policy committees over two years (2009 and 2010), network data for an EU-wide network of about 1300 fisheries interest group representatives and more than 200 events was collected. The structure of this network showed a number of interesting patterns, such as - not surprisingly - a rather central role of Brussels-based committees but also close relations of very specific interests to the Brussels-cluster and stronger relations between geographically closer maritime regions. The analysis of information flows then focused on access to draft EU Commission documents containing the upcoming proposal for a new basic regulation of the Common Fisheries Policy. It was first documented that it would have been impossible to officially obtain this document and that personal networks were thus the most likely sources for fisheries policy actors to obtain access to these "leaks" in early 2011. A survey of a sample of 65 actors from the initial network supported these findings: Only a very small group had accessed the draft directly from the Commission. Most respondents who obtained access to the draft had received it from other actors, highlighting the networked flow of informal information in EU politics. Furthermore, the testing of the hypotheses connecting network positions and the level of informedness indicated that presence in or connections to the Brussels sphere had both advantages for overall access to the draft document and with regard to timing. Methodologically, challenges of both the network analysis and the analysis of information flows but also their relevance for the study of EU politics have been documented. In summary, this study has laid the foundation for a different way to study EU policy-making by connecting topical and methodological elements - such as affiliation network analysis and EU committee governance - which so far have not been considered together, thereby contributing in various ways to political science and EU studies.}, language = {en} } @misc{Franzke2012, author = {Franzke, Jochen}, title = {Europa ohne Kompass}, issn = {0944-8101}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-59881}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Die noch nicht ausgestandene Staatsschuldenkrise seit Ende 2009 hat Europa st{\"a}rker ver{\"a}ndert, als viele wahrhaben wollen. Es stellt sich die grunds{\"a}tzliche Frage des Sinns der europ{\"a}ischen Integration. Vor allem die Glaubw{\"u}rdigkeit des europ{\"a}ischen politischen F{\"u}hrungspersonals hat gelitten. Ohne Kompass wurstelt man sich seit mehr als zwei Jahren durch. Keine "rote Linie", die nicht nach wenigen Wochen {\"u}berschritten wurde, kein Masterplan, der nicht bald Makulatur geworden ist.}, language = {de} } @misc{OPUS4-5983, title = {Neue Weltordnung 2.0}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-61954}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Wer ordnet die Welt im 21. Jahrhundert? Ist das Zeitalter der Hegemonie beendet? Welche Spieler werden das Great Game der nahen Zukunft bestimmen? Dies sind dr{\"a}ngende Fragen der internationalen Politik - und wir liefern Antworten in unserem Themenschwerpunkt: sachlich und pointiert, faktenorientiert und kontrovers. „Neue Weltordnung" war der Titel der ersten WeltTrends-Ausgabe 1993; „Neue Weltordnung 2.0" ist der Titel der nunmehr 86. Ausgabe. Auch im 20. Jahrgang bleibt die Zeitschrift ein kritischer, kompetenter Begleiter weltpolitischer Ereignisse - mit Sicherheit!}, language = {de} } @book{Wagener2012, author = {Wagener, Sascha}, title = {Der EU-Verfassungsvertrag und die Positionen linker Parteien}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-186-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-59391}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {86}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Diese Anfang 2006 fertiggestellte, nunmehr postum ver{\"o}ffentlichte Publikation untersucht und bewertet detailliert die Positionen zum Vertrag {\"u}ber eine Verfassung f{\"u}r Europa jener Parteien, die im Europ{\"a}ischen Parlament der "Konf{\"o}deralen Fraktion der Vereinten Europ{\"a}ischen Linken/Nordische Gr{\"u}ne Linke" (GUE/NGL) angeh{\"o}ren. Die Debatte zum europ{\"a}ischen Verfassungsvertrag zwang alle linken Parteien in einer erstmalig gef{\"u}hrten transnationalen Debatte, ihre Haltung zur EU-Mitgliedschaft des eigenen Landes, ihre Position zum Verfassungsvertrag als solchem sowie ihre generelle Bereitschaft zu verdeutlichen, einem „anderen" oder „besseren" Vertrag zuzustimmen. Die Arbeit zeigt eine sehr hohe Fragmentierung der Haltung der linken Parteien zum Verfassungsvertrag und zur Mitgliedschaft ihrer L{\"a}nder in der EU.}, language = {de} } @book{Kleger2011, author = {Kleger, Heinz}, title = {Solidarit{\"a}t in der Euro-Krise}, series = {WeltTrends Spezial}, volume = {4}, journal = {WeltTrends Spezial}, publisher = {WeltTrends e.V}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-941880-27-6}, issn = {2193-0627}, pages = {9}, year = {2011}, abstract = {Ende Juli 2011 jubelt die europ{\"a}ische Presse: Endlich gebe es die n{\"o}tige Solidarit{\"a}t in der Euro-Zone. Die Angriffe der Rating-Agenturen k{\"o}nnten abgewehrt, die Interessen der Finanzm{\"a}rkte befriedet werden. Was aber heißt Solidarit{\"a}t hier und heute? Wie ist sie in der Europ{\"a}ischen Union verankert, formal, rechtlich und politisch? Mit was f{\"u}r einer Krise haben wir es {\"u}berhaupt zu tun? Was verbindet die eingeforderte Solidarit{\"a}t mit der Demokratie? Und welche Rolle spielt Deutschland in dieser Krise? Antworten auf diese Fragen bietet der Text von Heinz Kleger.}, language = {de} }