Research Peter Bursens

Abstract

Trust in public governance is essential for a well-functioning society. This is especially so in the face of grand societal challenges, which put increasing pressure on trust and spark distrust. In this respect, it is essential to understand how trust is built through successful governance. Equally important is recognising that trust in itself is a fundamental prerequisite for successful governance. Therefore, and building on previous work of the GOVTRUST Centre of Excellence on trust and multilevel governance, the new GOVTRUST research programme focuses on trust and distrust in the governance of societal transitions. In doing so, GOVTRUST will make significant interdisciplinary contributions to both the trust literature and the scholarship regarding the governance of transitions. Contemporary governance of society is increasingly defied by uncertain and disruptive challenges affecting every part of our society. Societal challenges, such as climate change and digitalisation, represent very complex, interdependent, and multi-dimensional problems that require collaborative efforts of public, private, and non-profit actors, as well as individual citizens. In responding to these complex challenges, major societal transitions - i.e., systemic changes and deliberate alterations in the functioning of society - are necessary. The standard governance repertoire has not been able to bring about such successful transitions: e.g., at several governance levels negotiations are blocked, and regulatory and policy frameworks are strongly contested, rigid, and inapt to respond to scientific advances. It is therefore crucial to rethink governance, both regarding the arrangements and processes needed to make collective decisions, and regarding the capacities and behaviours of organisational and individual actors at different levels of governance (incl. local, regional, national, EU, international levels). Trust is a fundamental condition for such complex governance systems to perform well. Although the literature and our own GOVTRUST research have shown that a certain degree of distrust between actors within a governance system (public, private and civil society actors) might be functional in specific instances, recurring reports of distrust point to significant problems. When trust evaporates and/or distrust rises, cooperation between these governance actors is compromised, making successful governance of societal transitions very hard to achieve. Moreover, the actual (lack of) response of governance systems to societal challenges will in turn have an impact on trust by citizens in those systems. Therefore, GOVTRUST will focus on trust and distrust in and within the governance of transitions. GOVTRUST's core aim is to understand and analyse the dynamics, causes and effects of trust and distrust in and within the governance of societal transitions. As interdisciplinary collaboration is crucial to achieve this aim, the GOVTRUST consortium unites strong research teams from political science, public administration, law, communication sciences, sociology, organisational behaviour, and learning sciences. By expanding the existing consortium with experts from sociology, organisational behaviour, and learning sciences, the GOVTRUST consortium has all the necessary conceptual, theoretical, and methodological expertise to make ground-breaking contributions. With its unique capacity and experience, GOVTRUST will engage in frontline conceptual and theoretical innovation, combining advanced methodological approaches that prioritise interdisciplinarity and the involvement of societal actors. In this way, the expanded GOVTRUST consortium will build on its acquired expertise to generate major scientific breakthroughs and substantial societal impacts regarding trust in the governance of societal transitions, while further consolidating and strengthening its international position and the international visibility of the University of Antwerp in the field.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Verhoest Koen
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Oosterlynck Stijn
• Co-promoter: Popelier Patricia
• Co-promoter: Van den Bossche Piet
• Co-promoter: van Zimmeren Esther
• Co-promoter: Walrave Michel
• Co-promoter: Wynen Jan

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project website

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

BRIDGEGAP is a multidisciplinary research project reuniting former members of the ANTICORRP consortium (Transparency International, ERCAS/SAR, CSD, University of PISA, University of Perugia) who have continued to invest in the development of data commons allowing corruption understanding and monitoring on the basis of objective data (e.g. Integrity Watch, Index for Public Integrity, T-Index, Russian Economic Footprint), with new academic partners who published novel methods to measure money laundering (Utrecht University) anthropologists and criminologists who pioneered corruption studies in liberal democracies (IFFS), and new IT groups like the Ukrainian organisation YouControl, the first to interconnect data to enable searches of the assets of sanctioned individuals through its algorithm Follow the Money. BRIDGEGAP fills the knowledge gaps regarding both the extent to and the mechanisms by which corruption infiltrates open societies even across borders and it produces measurements of corruption across countries and time by itsinnovative models, as well associal network maps. It also assesses and offerssolutionsto the digital transparency gaps, ranging from the tools of transparency, the use and abuse of technology in corruption and anticorruption to the state of it. Finally, it assesses public accountability and anticorruption regulation across EUMS and candidate states to identify regulatory and impact gaps, thus addressing the academia–policy gap in corruption studies. The research will result in academic publications as well as in interactive analytical and research commons like comparative law repositories EU Compass, European Transparency Index, Follow the Money search engines across newly interconnected databases. All its pooled data will be displayed transparently on the website as a Data Hub and will offer end users the same investigation and analytical tools as the project researchers, inviting crowd-sourcing and offering online tutorials. The Work Package of the University of Antwerp will carry out an original survey assessing managers' perceptions, trust and propensity to comply with organisational Integrity Management Systems. Then, it will execute survey experiments in order to extend the understanding of the impact of the integrity systems on the perceptions, trust and behaviour of top and middle managers in different contexts (e.g., private vs public vs hybrid organisations and partnerships, controlling for cultural values). Participants in both surveys and experiments are recruited as part of panels of managers from selected industries such as banking, competition agencies and energy providers.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Duarte Coroado Susana
• Co-promoter: Verhoest Koen

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project website

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Given the current tenuous state of trust between institutions and actors at different levels in the EU governance system, the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence STRATEGO aims to teach, research and disseminate knowledge on the dynamics, causes and effects of trust between the actors and institutions involved in EU multi-level governance of sustainable development, with a focus on business and entrepreneurship, climate and biodiversity, and health policies. This empirical scope of STRATEGO connects with the UN's sustainable development goals, the policy priorities of the European Commission and the priorities of the Erasmus+ programme. STRATEGO will develop interdisciplinary synergies on EU governance, trust and sustainable development by bridging teaching, research and outreach efforts across disciplines at the University of Antwerp. Throughout all activities, STRATEGO will go beyond the usual producers and consumers of EU studies. It will bring EU governance knowledge of the Social Sciences, Law and Economics faculties to students and staff of the Science and Health Sciences faculties, and it will reach out beyond the academic environment to foster a dialogue with professionals, civilsociety and the general public. In terms of teaching, STRATEGO will ensure interdisciplinarity through guest lectures, joint supervision of bachelor and master theses and innovative formats such as simulations and micro-credentials. In terms of research, STRATEGO will bring together staff from various disciplines through research seminars, PhD masterclasses and a visiting scheme for early career scholars. In terms of outreach beyond the academic context, STRATEGO will organise activities such as thematic webinars, outreach workshops and activities for specific audiences such as secondary schools.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Beutels Philippe
• Co-promoter: De Bièvre Dirk
• Co-promoter: Hoijtink Marijn
• Co-promoter: Matthysen Erik
• Co-promoter: Meeusen Johan
• Co-promoter: Meier Petra
• Co-promoter: Popelier Patricia
• Co-promoter: Vanderstraeten Johanna
• Co-promoter: Van Dooren Wouter
• Co-promoter: van Zimmeren Esther
• Co-promoter: Verhoest Koen
• Co-promoter: Vicca Sara
• Co-promoter: Wynen Jan

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project website

Project type(s)

• Education Project
• Research Project

Abstract

This research project studies under which conditions the inclusion of principle-based regulation (PBR) in hybrid regulatory regimes affects both beneficiaries' and regulatees' trust in those regimes. Trust in regulation and in the actors that define, implement, enforce and judge the regulation - what we call the regulatory regime - is crucial. However, trust in regulatory regimes is often put to the test by high-impact events (e.g. financial crisis, COVID pandemic, PFAS scandal). In looking for ways to restore such trust, principle-based regulation (PBR) has been put forward as a responsive and flexible approach to regulation that sets principles or goals broadly and at a high level. Instead of focusing on 'pure' PBR, the project will advance current research by studying PBR in a hybrid context (combining prescriptive regulation and PBR), more specifically the food safety sector. Drawing upon state-of-the-art research, three conditions are formulated, analysed and assessed in order to study their role in explaining beneficiaries' and regulatees' trust in hybrid regulatory regimes: rule formulation, interest participation and regulatory enforcement. Methodologically, this project applies an innovative, mixed-method design combining conjoint survey experiments and focus groups.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Verhoest Koen
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Popelier Patricia
• Fellow: Willems Cassandra

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Complex societal issues such as climate change, technological developments, or the COVID-19 crisis trigger demands for more flexible regulations. Supra-national and Belgian national, regional and local authorities are calling for regulatory innovation and particularly regulation based on goals as a way to guarantee and increase the legitimacy of regulations. Despite a broad acclaim for GBR, the scientific work on GBR remains largely theoretical and conjectural. Conceptually founded and empirically validated knowledge is still lacking. Therefore, the GOBAREG project studies the conditions and context under which GBR can be included, designed and implemented legitimately and achieve its expected outcomes in a hybrid multi-actor regulatory regime. More precisely, GOBAREG will examine the conditions for legitimate GBR, as well as investigate context factors and the expected GBR outcomes. The objectives of the project are to (1) analyse the evolution towards GBR, (2) assess the impact of the evolution towards GBR on the behaviour of individual actors, and (3) understand under which combined set of conditions and context factors GBR can maximise its legitimacy and realise its expected outcomes. GOBAREG applies an innovative interdisciplinary, mixed-method design, including systematic mapping, behavioural experiments and large-scale field experiments, and studies two in-depth case studies of social regulation (sectors environment and welfare in Flanders). In doing so, GOBAREG pushes theoretical, methodological and empirical boundaries, while increasing GBR's validity. Through co-creation, GOBAREG will maximise its utilisation potential by developing innovative GBR solutions matched to the needs of societal users.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Verhoest Koen
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: De Somer Stéphanie
• Co-promoter: Popelier Patricia

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project studies the national implementation of legal judgements from courts and managerial agreements from non-compliance mechanisms on European and international environmental issues. Against the background of the increasing impact of climate change and a lack of specialised jurisdiction over environmental disputes beyond the nation state, the implementation of legal obligations is a crucial tool to protect Earth's environment from harm. Yet, systematic insights on the national implementation of so-called 'resolution mechanisms', i.e., managerial agreements from non-compliance mechanisms and court judgements on supra- and international environmental issues, are lacking. This project will investigate the conditions explaining effective implementation of such agreements and judgements by adapting insights on policy implementation research and comparing processes of implementation across different types of resolution mechanisms. It will develop an innovative, theory-driven concept-structural framework based on key conditions from the implementation literature (actor preferences, institutional legitimacy, resolution mechanisms) that mirror the existing management and enforcement approaches. The framework will enable systematic comparisons across resolution mechanisms and thus account for a diversity of separate but equally valid explanations. Empirical analysis will follow a mixed methods approach that includes (1) data gathering based on public documents and expert interviews, (2) a comparative assessment via Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) including case studies, and (3) in-depth process tracing of unexpected cases identified in the QCA. This approach will provide generalisable insights on how different preferences combine with varying degrees of legitimacy and resolution mechanisms to explain the national implementation of managerial agreements and court judgements on environmental issues.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: van Zimmeren Esther
• Fellow: Corcaci Andreas

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

One could say that the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine are the latest and most explicit examples of social, political and economic disruption of society, revealing the underlying tensions liberal democracies in Europe are facing. These tensions are experienced in particular by young adults embarking upon new and crucial phases in their life trajectory. When developing and articulating their goals and ambitions, and seeking their place in society as young adult citizens, young adults are increasingly confronted with a multitude of (sometimes competing) narratives and practices on what democracy is and what citizenship entails. Moreover, in response to crises, citizenship can become a strategy to exclude as well as include others in society. Major events accentuate on the one hand the enduring inequalities and exclusion processes related to e.g. gender, ethnicity, class and political preferences in every society, while on the other hand often also reveal the resilience and strength of individuals and communities in their commitment to democracy and citizenship. It is this complexity and situatedness of democratic thinking and active citizenship that our project aims to address. The period of emerging adulthood (18- to 24-year-olds) defines the years young adults often receive a lot of new duties and need to make sense and sometimes choose between different opportunities and life paths. In this project we aim to collect new research data in order to strengthen our future EU application. Building on the groundwork of the EDICT proposal we aim to explore young adults' perceptions, experiences and behaviors with respect to issues of citizenship, democratic thinking, identity and diversity. We study how research can grasp the underlying processes influencing young adults and to this end we aim to develop a survey tool to be implemented in different (educational) settings, and which will lead to new research insights.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Clycq Noel
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Donche Vincent
• Co-promoter: Gijbels David

Research team(s)

• EduBROn

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

LEGITIMULT assesses the impact of the measures taken by various international, national and subnational governments on multilevel institutions and intergovernmental relations in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The project analyzes the effect of these measures on democratic governance, highlighting to what extent multilevel governance influences their impact on democracy, favoring a model of legitimate crisis management. It assesses all measures taken by 31 European countries in relation to their impact on multilevel governance through the creation of a new dataset highlighting how these procedures link to multiple orders of governance – WHO and EU above the states, and regional and local governments below the national level. The impact of these measures is analyzed through the lens of a variety of dimensions that characterize functional democratic governance (Rule of Law and Democratic Participation; Human and Minority Rights; Trust; Economic Sustainability). LEGITIMULT qualifies the different trade-offs required within and across these dimensions in order to effectively and quickly deal with a crisis such as Covid-19, while at the same time maintaining a level of democratic governance and ensuring that any limitations to democratic standards are limited. These final trade-offs within and between the different dimensions of democratic governance in crisis management are gathered in a set of policy recommendations, tailored to different recipients, and developed through extensive consultation with stakeholder groups throughout the project. Citizens, policy makers and practitioners are involved in the experimental phase of the project, where interactive learning and practical tools are tested but also co-designed and co refined with relevant stakeholders in a participatory way. Policy recommendations and practical tools merge into a toolkit for legitimate crisis management, ready for use in possible future crises.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Popelier Patricia
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Contemporary governance of society is complex, as public authorities at different levels of government (EU, national, subnational) cooperate with non-state actors in multi-layered decision-making arenas when designing and implementing regulation. This complexity of governance is reflected in the concept of 'multi-level governance'. For a multi-level governance system to perform well, trust is a fundamental condition. While a certain degree of organised distrust between actors may be functional, the recurring reports of declining trust between citizens, private sector organizations, and public authorities at different governmental levels raise severe challenges for society. When trust declines, cooperation between citizens, private organizations, and government, but also between public authorities at the different levels of government is compromised. And without cooperation, effective governance is not possible. However, scientific knowledge about the dynamics, causes and effect of trust and distrust in multilevel governance is underdeveloped. Encompassing research teams from political science and public administration, law, communication sciences and behavioural economics, the research excellence consortium GOVTRUST will study in an interdisciplinary way the dynamics, causes and effects of trust and distrust between the actors involved in multi-level governance. To that end, the consortium will apply mixed research designs with diverse research methodologies, including legal studies, large-N surveys, different kinds of experiments, content analysis, social network analysis as well as small-N controlled case comparisons. With its research program, collaborations and activities the consortium will contribute to scientific knowledge at an international level of excellence, while increasing the international reputation of the University of Antwerp and aiming for a substantial impact on the governance of society.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Verhoest Koen
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Declerck Carolyn
• Co-promoter: Popelier Patricia
• Co-promoter: Walrave Michel

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project website

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Governance refers to the system through which an organization or network of actors is controlled and held accountable. The ability of groups or organizations to self-govern, at least to some extent, is essential in government, as well as in the relation of government with societal actors and the citizenry. Self-governance, autonomy, and accountability have been conceptualized and measured in political science, public administration, and law in many different ways. This project aims to develop measurement instruments that can measure the extent and dimensions of self-governance, autonomy, and accountability through text analysis of government documents. The project, which will run for 1,5 year (December 2022-May 2024), will systematically review existing work, integrate disciplinary views into new coding schemes and measurement instruments, test the latter by application to different government documents, and investigate automated data gathering and analysis using computer-assisted methods of extracting and organizing data from large quantities of unstructured text in government documents. The project will be led by Koen Verhoest (public administration and governance; main promoter), Peter Bursens (political science, co-promoter) and Patricia Popelier (law, co-promoter).

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Verhoest Koen
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Poels Karolien
• Co-promoter: Popelier Patricia

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Currently, the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (VH) – a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated – varies considerably across EU member states (74,3% in Spain versus 58,9% in France and 56,3% in Poland) (Lazarus et al., 2020). Understanding why and how this vaccine hesitancy occurs is important, and the relevance of this issue carries beyond national borders. This is especially the case in the EU–comprised of 27 countries with diverse experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, various political systems and citizens embedded in different political communities. So far, vaccine hesitancy in developed countries has been investigated mostly from the health sciences perspective and focused almost exclusively (1) on socio-economic and demographic explanations (2) in specific subgroups of the population (at meso- levels, e.g. health professionals, parents, religious or immigrant communities). Little has been done in the field of political science to explore possible (1) political explanations for vaccine hesitancy and (2) at other than meso-levels (i.e. at macro-(cross-country) and micro-(individual)level). Meanwhile, the cross-national differences in VH and recent evidence suggest that VH might be strongly linked to political factors. Against this backdrop, this project asks: how do political factors explain vaccine hesitancy at macro- and micro-levels? In this interdisciplinary project, I combine insights from political science, political psychology, European studies, public administration and health sciences to build a theoretical model offering political explanations of vaccine hesitancy. Based on extensive literature review, I conceptualize vaccine hesitancy as contradictory to vaccination, which is a (a) pro-social (b) rule and norm compliant (c) risk-taking behavior. As such, it is likely to be a result of both normative (i.e. European identity, party orientations) and instrumental modes of compliance (i.e. trust) known from the compliance literature. To these, I add one more political factor of possibly high relevance for vaccine hesitancy: political polarization. As research shows, increasing political polarization is currently undermining functioning of democratic regimes around the world (Carothers & O'Donohue, 2019; Citrin & Stoker, 2018; McCoy, Rahman, & Somer, 2018; McCoy & Somer, 2019). In politically polarized states, "cleavages are likely to be very deep, consensus is surely low, and legitimacy of the political system is widely questioned" (Sartori, 1976, p. 135). High political polarization hinders government's capacity to solve collective action problems, which might result in e.g. vaccine hesitancy. This project contributes to several important academic debates. First, I add to health sciences by bringing in a political science perspective: I offer new political explanations to the old questions of vaccine hesitancy. Second, I formulate socio-political consequences of political polarization and trust in a highly relevant area of public health. Third, I adapt the theoretical framework of rule compliance to a new field of vaccination and vaccine hesitancy. Fourth, I link the specific rule compliance behavior to the issues of national vs. European identity, exploring to what extent these political identities can be translated into a pro-social risk-taking behavior.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Verhoest Koen
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Fellow: Proszowska Dominika

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Hoewel ingrijpende Covid-19 lockdownmaatregelen legitiem waren in de eerste maanden van de crisis, begint de roep om strenge maatregelen geleidelijk aan af te nemen. Burgers eisen dat exit-strategieën ontwikkeld worden met voldoende aandacht voor hun sociaaleconomische belangen, terwijl potentiële inbreuken op grondrechten zoals bewegingsvrijheid, privacy en eerlijke mededinging, en rechtsbeginselen zoals gelijkheid en proportionaliteit, leiden tot kritiek en zelfs rechtszaken tegen overheidsmaatregelen. De huidige overheidsstrategieën zijn hoofdzakelijk gebaseerd zijn op epidemiologisch en medisch onderzoek. De toenemende relevantie van sociale en juridische factoren voor exit-strategieën impliceert echter dat nieuwe data en kennis dringend nodig zijn. In het bijzonder is er behoefte aan inzicht in de voorwaarden waaronder Covid-19 overheidsmaatregelen sociaal legitiem en wettig zijn en burgers stimuleren tot naleving. Ons project verhelpt het gebrek aan wetenschappelijke en beleidsrelevante kennis van sociale en juridische factoren van belang bij Covid- 19 exit-strategieën, door middel van een dubbele onderzoekaanpak: 1) drie vignette surveys bestuderen hoe de nalevingsbereidheid en legitimiteit van combinaties van nieuwe Belgische Covid-19 maatregelen worden beïnvloed door framing op onderliggende volksgezondheids-, sociale en juridische belangen, en 2) een systematische juridische analyse genereert inzicht in de wettigheid van nieuwe maatregelen, en dient tevens als essentiële input voor het ontwerp van voornoemde vignette surveys. Door middel van continue communicatie aan overheden van resultaten uit zowel de vignette survey als de juridische analyse, kunnen we reeds gedurende het project beleidsrelevante input leveren voor concrete maatregelen. Daarmee helpen we overheden om geïnformeerde en gebalanceerde beslissingen te nemen over hun exit-strategieën en helpen we gebrekkige naleving van of rechtszaken tegen Covid-19 maatregelen te voorkomen.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Popelier Patricia
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Declerck Carolyn
• Co-promoter: van Zimmeren Esther
• Co-promoter: Verhoest Koen
• Co-promoter: Walrave Michel

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project website

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This SEP-grant constitutes an additional year of the PhD-trajectory of Bas Redert. It is subsequent to a three year EU grant in the framework of the Innovative Training Network PLATO on the Post-crisis Legitimacy of the European Union. The grant has four significant benefits to the research already conducted by PhD-researcher Bas Redert and to future academic endeavors at the University of Antwerp. First, the prolongation of the PhD-trajectory makes it possible to analyze the topic at hand in more depth. Also, it means that previous research can be extended, and novel methodologies can be applied to the study of EU interest groups. As a result, the SEP-grant opens new (methodological) avenues for research in this specific field. Besides, the grant also serves to make the PhD-dissertation more coherent and well-rounded. Second, and related to this, the prolongation makes it possible to publish various articles in top-journals. During the three year ITN-scholarship, a single-authored article in the highly ranked Journal of Common Market Studies has been accepted for publication, and a co-authored book chapter in an edited volume (edited by Chris Lord, Dirk De Bièvre, Ramses Wessels and Peter Bursens) is awaited to be published by ECPR Press. The SEP-grant will provide time to prepare and submit other articles for publication in top journals. Third, the SEP grant makes it possible to write an FWO junior postdoctoral grant proposal. As the timeframe of a three-year PhD-trajectory is extremely tight, it would have been difficult to write an up-to-par FWO proposal. Receiving the SEP grant provides the time needed to prepare and submit an outstanding post-doc proposal for the Politics and Public Governance research group at the University of Antwerp. The proposal will be submitted for the call of December 2020 and would be awarded in June 2021. Fourth, the additional year of funding will be used to write and submit grant and research project proposals together with my current supervisors and other UAntwerp faculty. Recently, the Politics and Public Governance research group became part of one the Centres of Excellence with a focus on 'Trust and Distrust in Multi-level Governance'. GOVTRUST will perform cutting-edge and cross-disciplinary research at international frontier domains. Research expertise on stakeholder involvement in relation to EU legitimacy and legitimation strategies fits perfectly within the aims and scopes of the Centre. Hence, close cooperation with the Centre of Excellence will be highly stimulating and beneficial for both sides. More specifically, GOVTRUST will provide the context to apply for larger scale collaborative European research programs. Indeed, prolongation generates benefits for the University of Antwerp as it allows for submitting grant proposals to be executed in Antwerp. In short, the SEP grant makes it possible to stimulate ongoing research endeavors and creates lasting initiatives for new research at the university.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

TiGRE provides an encompassing and coherent analytical framework for the study of trust relationships in governance. It studies trust among actors of regulatory regimes, such as regulators, political, administrative and judicial bodies, the regulated industries, service providers and their interest organisations, consumers and other societal interests, as well as citizens at large. TiGRE opens thereby new research directions within the tradition of studies of trust relationships between citizens and public authorities. TiGRE's aim is to reveal the role of trust and distrust in European regulatory governance and the ways trust can be maintained, enhanced, repaired and nurtured via administrative practices and reforms. It takes a multilevel governance approach, which includes the EU level as well as the national and regional ones. Trust – both as a pre-condition and a consequence of well-functioning regulatory regimes – is a key factor to be considered in order to capture how these regimes are able to produce effective and legitimate governance. The in-depth investigation of the complex interplay between trust configurations and regulation in different regulatory regimes (finance, food safety, communication and data protection) across levels of governance and in several countries requires the joint effort of experts with wide-ranging experience. TiGRE is run by a tightly integrated multidisciplinary consortium of top-level scholars, who bring together a very broad range of theoretical, substantial, and methodological skills. A cutting-edge mixed-method approach is applied to provide a comprehensive understanding of such multi-faceted trust-related processes. To bridge research with policy and practice, TiGRE provides criteria, indicators and early warning mechanisms for detecting decreasing trust, and scenarios on consequences thereof. They will be validated through interaction with stakeholders and compared with evidence from outside the EU.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Verhoest Koen
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Van Dooren Wouter

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The main aim of the project is to strengthen teaching on the EU in political science programs. In addition, activities in all three additional categories will be deployed: serving other academic disciplines, supervising research on active learning and organizing teaching and other events for the general public and targeted groups such as secondary school pupils. The chair's academic teaching load is almost entirely focused on European Integration, yet very diverse in terms of content, teaching methods and curricula. The courses are mainly taught in English, organized by the department of Political Science and serve bachelor and master students in Political Science, Political Communication, and International Relations and Diplomacy. In addition, courses are offered in the Faculty of Sciences and the Antwerp Management School. The Jean Monnet support will enable to further develop the courses, in particular regarding skills teaching. The implementation of simulations and other skills teaching is increasingly underpinned by interdisciplinary research. The chair is senior member of the research group Politics and Public Governance (PPG). PPG studies political and public governance institutions, their evolution and how institutional mechanisms shape actors' scope of action, positions, decisions and behaviour, more in particular in a European multi-layered and multi-actor context. One research agenda to be further developed within PPG is the interdisciplinary track on assessing the impact of skills teaching on student's learning outcomes. Finally, the chair will organise EU related events through which a variety of audiences will be targeted.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Research Project
• Education Project

Abstract

It is often argued that the European Union (EU) suffers from a 'democratic deficit' and that its representative democracy is not functioning well. Generally, it is expected that the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) should represent the 'citizens' voice in the EU' (see European Parliament's website). Yet, we know little about the representative behaviour of MEPs. Who or what do MEPs actually represent? And how can we explain differences in their so-called 'foci of representation'? Is this just a matter of differences between MEPs or can an MEP represent someone or something different in different contexts? These are the questions guiding this research project. Empirically, we focus on one of the key tasks of MEPs: to legislate. More specifically, the amendments MEPs introduce to legislation proposed by the European Commission (EC) will be analysed. The project will look into whether the amendments refer to, for example, a specific business or industry, to a more general interest like global warming, or to the MEPs member state or local constituency. The innovative contribution is that we start from the assumption that MEPs do not express just one of these foci, but that they can combine multiple foci in one amendment and shift between foci according to policy issue or moment in the electoral cycle. Theoretically, the aim is to explain variation in the focus of representation using a model that integrates EU-level, individual level and country level factors.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Beyers Jan
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Is there a crisis in the legitimacy of the European Union? That research question is timely and important. Investigating it is also an ideal way of training research leaders of tomorrow to rethink our assumptions about the study of legitimate political order. Whilst, however, the financial crisis has raised new questions about the legitimacy of the EU, existing theories of legitimacy crises are largely based on single-state political systems. New theory is, therefore, needed to understand what would count as legitimacy crises in the case of a non-state political system such as the EU. PLATO's (The Post-Crisis Legitimacy of the EU) ESRs will work together as a team to build new theory from 15 investigations into different standards and actors with whom the EU may need to be legitimate. ESRs will go well beyond the state-of-the-art by building a theory of legitimacy crisis in the EU from a uniquely interdisciplinary understanding of how democracy, power, law, economies and societies all fit together with institutions within and beyond the state to affect the legitimacy of contemporary political order. By developing the analytical tools needed to understand a core predicament in which the EU may both need to develop legitimate forms of political power beyond the state and find those forms of power hard to achieve, PLATO will train ESRs with the conceptual clarity needed to define new research questions at the very frontiers of their disciplines and the methodological skills needed to research those questions. They will also be prepared for careers in the non-academic sector (policy-advice, consulting, civil society, European institutions and expert bodies). PLATO's ambitious cross-university, crosscountry and cross-sectoral programme of research training, supervision and secondments will pool resources from a unique network of 9 research-intensive universities and 11 non-academic partners who are themselves key users of state-of-the-art social science research. https://www.plato.uio.no/

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: De Bièvre Dirk
• Co-promoter: Beyers Jan
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project website

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The core research revolves around the theme of multilevel governance in the EU. The consortium examines how EU multilevel governance impacts upon public policymaking processes in relation to rule-making and rule-implementation, both at the European and the domestic level. Its research program is centered around three interrelated research lines focusing on the complex multilevel governance system of the EU, changing domestic and EU rule-making processes and the legitimacy of the EU multilevel political system. Multilevel governance in the EU has made the organizational and institutional architecture of government and governance institutions much more interdependent and complex, affecting the way national and European societal interests organize themselves, how they secure representation and provide input in order to influence policy outcomes. These developments interact with changing domestic and European processes and outcomes of rule-making. All this ultimately raises questions concerning the legitimacy of how the EU multilevel political system operates and involves citizens and societal groups.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Beyers Jan
• Co-promoter: De Bièvre Dirk
• Co-promoter: Meeusen Johan
• Co-promoter: Popelier Patricia
• Co-promoter: Van Dooren Wouter
• Co-promoter: van Zimmeren Esther
• Co-promoter: Verhoest Koen

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Education Project
• Research Project

Abstract

Academic teaching in political science has been increasingly changing from more teacher-centered towards more student-centered teaching. This trend entails the increasing use of active learning environments such as simulations which challenge students to deal critically with various aspects of decision-making, the content of policies, and the interactions between multiple actors and levels. Advocates of active teaching methods make a number of claims about the effects on learning results and dimensions of affective learning. However, substantive evidence of the effects is up to now rather anecdotal and methodologically poor, sometimes even contradictory. Hence, the main aim of this project is to investigate the effect of simulations of decision-making on one of the most important affective components of student learning: student's situational interest. The latter has been shown to be triggered by factors in the learning environment and an important predictor of academic performance. We start from the assumption that variation in active-learning environments will have an impact on students' situational interest. The research questions in this project therefore deal with how simulations influence situational interest of students. Do simulations of decision-making enhance student's situational interest? How does situational interest develop during a simulation of decision-making? Which conditions make simulations of decision-making more or less effective? What are the prohibiting and stimulating factors? Methodologically the project uses a quasi-experimental study in an ecological valid setting combining repeated measurement survey data with qualitative data from interviews and focus groups with students. We will collect unique data in a treatment condition as well as in a control condition. The intervention condition comprises several samples that are readily available as the main promotor of the team is involved in several national and international simulation projects. The design allows for innovation in terms of methods (quasi-experimental setting), empirics (unique data), multi-disciplinary approach (nexus between political sciences and educational sciences) and implementation (improving the effectiveness of simulations as a teaching tool).

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Donche Vincent
• Co-promoter: Gijbels David
• Fellow: Duchatelet Dorothy

Research team(s)

• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project represents a formal research agreement between UA and on the other hand Erasmus Mundus. UA provides Erasmus Mundus research results mentioned in the title of the project under the conditions as stipulated in this contract.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

To determine what impact the Eurocrisis has on the legitimacy of the EU, research on mechanisms that shape attitudes, perceptions and identities becomes paramount. Within this research agenda, I will turn to visual utterances of media coverage. By executing a comparative analysis of political cartoons, I intend to examine whether the political, economic and financial split in Europe is accompanied with a communicational or ideational split.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Pauwels Luc
• Fellow: Van Hecke Matti

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project represents a formal research agreement between UA and on the other hand the client. UA provides the client research results mentioned in the title of the project under the conditions as stipulated in this contract.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project represents a formal research agreement between UA and on the other hand the client. UA provides the client research results mentioned in the title of the project under the conditions as stipulated in this contract.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The consortium is composed of the Antwerp Centre for Institutions and Multilevel Politics, the Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School and the H.U.Brussel. Within the KU Leuven, colleagues from the Faculty of Business and Economics, the HIVA - Research Institute for Work and Society, the Institute for International and European Policy, the Research Unit International and Foreign Law, the Institute for International Law, and the Institute for European Law are also involved in the project. Research is structured in four thematic pillars: (i) International and European Law; (ii) International and European Policy; (iii) International Entrepreneurship; and (iv)Development Cooperation. The University of Antwerp takes the lead in the second pillar. Project 1: Explaining variation of regional authorities' influence in EU legislation European policy has an impact on competences held by regions. Moreover oftentimes regions have to implement directives coming from the European Union. Therefore it is relevant for them to gather information about incoming European legislation as well as try to be heard during the policymaking process. With this in mind the regional representations were set up in Brussels. The influence of these regional representations varies. The goal of this research is to explain the variation in influence of regional representations on the EU policymaking process. The first step is to quantify influence using expert interviews and preference attainment. This method studies whether and by how much regions were able to approach the policy outcome to their preferred outcome. Subsequently, the differences in influence will be explained by three clusters of variables. The most interesting cluster includes the strategies regions use to influence the policymaking process, for instance coalitions with other actors (NGOs, companies, interest groups). The two other clusters of variables include the characteristics of the region (e.g. amount of personnel at the regional representation) and the characteristics of the issue (e.g. degree of polarization). The goal is to find variables and more specifically strategies that make a difference in the influence of regions in the EU. project 2: Explaining variation in regional authorities' representation in European Union external policy fields The central research question of this project is: what explains variation in the way in which regional governments represent their interests in external economic policy fields of the European Union? More precisely, we will focus on ways and channels through which regions try to limit the information-asymmetry, that arises because different governmental levels play a role in this external policy. From this other questions follow: what is the degree of impact of EU external policy on the regions (or on Flanders)? How can regions effectively represent their interests in the EU's external policy? Otherwise stated: which methods are the most effective to minimize the loss of information? The external policy of the EU contains the policy fields where the EU, as a sole actor, represents the member states on the international level. Two aspects that vary will be compared. Firstly we will investigate the differences between the external policy fields of trade in goods, trade in services, competition, intellectual property and investment. Secondly we will compare different regions on how they follow up the EU's external policies.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project represents a formal research agreement between UA and on the other hand the Flemish Public Service. UA provides the Flemish Public Service research results mentioned in the title of the project under the conditions as stipulated in this contract.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Janvier Ria
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Van Dooren Wouter

Research team(s)

• Public Administration & Management
• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project explores the ways in which EU Presidencies affects the knowledge, opinions and attitudes on European integration among the public opinion and among experts (ministers and their cabinet members, civil servants and diplomats). The empirical research is focused on the Belgian EU Presidency in the second half of 2010. Collection of data will be done by interviews (experts) and focus groups (public opinion). The Netherlands will be taken as control case.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Fellow: Van Hecke Steven

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The Belgian federation suffers from substantial problems with respect to its democratic legitimacy. This project aims at a systematic analysis of Belgian democratic legitimacy in order to formulate suggestions with respect to improvements. This will be done through a theoretical redesigning of democracy concepts for multilevel political systems and through a comparative analysis of the EU and other (quasi-)federal political systems

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Sinardet Dave

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The "White Paper on European Governance" is presented as an answer to the legitimacy crisis of the EU. Both legal and political science scholars consider "good governance" as a remedy for the legitimacy problems of the EU, but at the same time criticize the current EU-concept. This project develops an interdisciplinary theoretical model of European "good governance" and tests the existing European model against the theoretical ideal type.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Adams Maurice
• Co-promoter: Meeusen Johan

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Coercive diplomacy aims at convincing the opponent to halt his action by backing one's demand with a threat to punishment, possibly including the limited use of violence. Factors that make that coercive diplomacy is effective, are: the motivation of both parties (in absolute terms), which is related to the size of the demand and the size of the related interests; asymmetry with respect to motivation and interests (in relative terms); the fear (by the opponent) of escalation; sensitivity to sanctions by the opponent; the credibility of the one that threatens, which on its turn depends on the means available and his reputation; the support of public opinion, both internally and externally; the role of time (for instance ultimatum); and the availability of positive incentives. The research question is dual: 1) To what extent is coercive diplomacy an effective instrument for the EU Foreign and Security Policy ? In other words, to what extent correspond the characteristics of the EU with the higher mentioned factors that determine the success rate of coercive diplomacy ? 2) To what extent does the possible succesful use of coercive diplomacy by the EU the existing theoretical framework of coercive diplomacy ? More in particular, are economic instruments (like economic sanctions) enough, or should there be a military stick available ? The analysis is of a qualitative nature; more in particular we will use the case-study method on the basis of a review of the literature and interviews. Case-study: the EU policy vis-à-vis the nuclear program of Iran since 2003.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Fellow: Sauer Tom

Research team(s)

Project website

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project consists of a series of workshops (Napoli, Edinburgh, Roma) and aims at a book chapter in a comparative reader on Regionalisation in Europe. The chapter will be co-athored by Peter Bursens (Universiteit Antwerpen), Wilfried Swenden (University of Edinburgh) and Stephan Förster (German Community - Belgium). It deals with the impact of European Integration on the external relations of the Belgian subnational level.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Since the 1980s asylum and migration in the European Union (EU) are increasingly been defined as a security risk. They are considered to be a cross-border threat to the realization of the internal market due to the abolition of internal border controls and a threat to the national stability of the Member States. The social construction of asylum as a problem causes a strong tension with the traditional humanitarian framework that forms the basis of international refugee protection and seems to result in the development of a restrictive European common asylum policy where the emphasis is being put on the controlling and preventing of migration into the EU. In this Ph.-D. research I will study the tension between security and human rights from a discourse-theoretical framework, based on the work of Foucault, Laclau & Mouffe and others. Since discourse theory doesn't contain an elaborated system of methods, working on methodology and research strategy will also be one of the challenges of this Ph. D. research. The main research question read as follows: Does a security discourse dominate the development of a European Common Asylum System (ECAS) and in what range does this explain the restrictive elements in the ECAS? In order to test this hypothesis two additional questions have to be answered: first: how does this process of securitization work? And second: what are the implications of a security discourse with relation to the development of the ECAS? On the basis of discourse analysis of primary sources (EU-treaties, reports of the Council, European Commission, European Parliament, interviews with EU-officials) and secondary sources (media-coverage, NGO reports etc', I will try to prove empirically that underneath the creation of the ECAS a securitization process is present. If the results show otherwise then the securitization process, which has been postulated regularly, but never proven empirically, should be falsified.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Fellow: Van Dijck Dominique

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project examines the origins of political preferences regarding the European integration process on the level of individual political elites. Through quantitative and qualitative analyses it seeks to determine the relative weight of a rational calculus (rational choice institutionalism) and the socialising context (sociological institutional institutionalism) in the formation of elite preferences on European integration in Belgium.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project deals with policy evaluation, and more in particular with the aims, formulation and efficiency of policies. The project aims (1) to evaluate whether Belgian policies which aim at changes in production and consumption patterns are coherent; (2) to analyse strenghts and weaknesses of current policies; (3) to formulate policy advice based on relevant concepts, instruments and methods.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Loots Ilse

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Since the 1980s asylum and migration in the European Union (EU) are increasingly been defined as a security risk. They are considered to be a cross-border threat to the realization of the internal market due to the abolition of internal border controls and a threat to the national stability of the Member States. The social construction of asylum as a problem causes a strong tension with the traditional humanitarian framework that forms the basis of international refugee protection and seems to result in the development of a restrictive European common asylum policy where the emphasis is being put on the controlling and preventing of migration into the EU. In this Ph.-D. research I will study the tension between security and human rights from a discourse-theoretical framework, based on the work of Foucault, Laclau & Mouffe and others. Since discourse theory doesn't contain an elaborated system of methods, working on methodology and research strategy will also be one of the challenges of this Ph. D. research. The main research question read as follows: Does a security discourse dominate the development of a European Common Asylum System (ECAS) and in what range does this explain the restrictive elements in the ECAS? In order to test this hypothesis two additional questions have to be answered: first: how does this process of securitization work? And second: what are the implications of a security discourse with relation to the development of the ECAS? On the basis of discourse analysis of primary sources (EU-treaties, reports of the Council, European Commission, European Parliament, interviews with EU-officials) and secondary sources (media-coverage, NGO reports etc', I will try to prove empirically that underneath the creation of the ECAS a securitization process is present. If the results show otherwise then the securitization process, which has been postulated regularly, but never proven empirically, should be falsified.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Fellow: Van Dijck Dominique

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Pelleriaux Koen
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The migration and asylum policy of the European Union has made a policy shift throughout the nineties. Especially since the European Council in Tampere, the external dimension of migration and asylum has become a priority, the emphasis being laid on the causes of migration flows in countries of origin. Policy innovation has taken place on the junction of European refugee and migration policy and the external relations of the Union, the ultimate ambition being the establishment of a comprehensive or cross-pillar approach. However, this innovation turns out to be quite problematic. The pillar structure has led to a different level of communitarisation and involvement of the EU institutions, diverse decision-making procedures and various policy instruments, and as such has complicated the comprehensive or cross-pillar approach. This Ph.D. research aims at finding an explanation for the above-mentioned policy innovation. The main question reads as follows: how can the linking of asylum/migration and foreign policy best be explained? From a theoretical point of view, and more specifically the literature on supranational governance and institutionalisation, some factors are being put forward that account for policy entrepreneurship, endogenous development and external events. However, in an attempt to also clarify the security discourse in the field of migration, the above-mentioned factors need to be reread from a discourse theoretical perspective. The empirical part of the research will display a discourse analysis ' in which the discourse theoretical concepts of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe will be applied ' on EU policy documents related to the general policy shift on the one hand, and to four case studies on the other, being the High-Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration and its Action Plans, management of migration flows and readmission, co-operation with the Balkans on migration and asylum, and finally temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Fellow: Sterkx Steven

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The project 'EPHEBOS' attempts to analyse the basic needs and available sources in order to create a Europe-oriented modular education package for the bachelor level within the Association of the University of Antwerp-Colleges within the Antwerp province. This comprehensive research about education fits into the priorities of the Antwerp prov~nce and gains momentum with the Bologna declaration.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Meeusen Johan
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The "training centre for EU affairs" is part of a cooperation program between Flanders and Central and East Europe. The goal of this project is to start up an education centre to improve the knowledge and skills of Czech public servants about Europe in anticipation of the entry to the European Union in 2004. This way, the project supports the main goal of the Czech foreign policy: stimulating the necessary reforms for integration in the European Uninon. The intention of the Flemish government is to assist candidate member states like the Czech Republic with this goal.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Janvier Ria
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

• Public Administration & Management
• Politics & Public Governance

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

International organisations such as WTO, IMF, World Bank, FTAA, EU and G8 are faced with a problem of political legitimacy. Indeed, the anti-globalisation movement can be seen to mobilise not only against the negative social and ecological consequences of economic globalisation, but also against the so-called `undemocratic nature' of international decision making. The growing emigration of decision making powers from the nation state to international organisations has made the issue of legitimacy more salient. The geographic and social distance between the centre of decision making and the citizens has grown considerably, a key issue in the literature concerning multilevel governance. It is exactly this crisis of legitimacy, faced by international organisations, that makes up the focal point of our research project. For our case studies we opted for two very divergent international organisations, which can be seen to occupy the end positions on the continuum from supranational to intergovernmental: the European Union (EU) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It is impossible to include all aspects of legitimacy of international organisations in this project. For this reason, the project focusses on certain aspects. Central to the debate, of course, is the anti-globalisation movement. So we want to find out: Who are these people, What do they want? How do they mobilise? To get an in-depth understanding, we use a variety of research methods. Since international institutions are far removed from the general public, we can assume a significant role for the media in creating knowledge of and attitudes towards these organisations. To this end, an extensive media analysis will be conducted of a range of media, both longitudinal and centred around certain top meetings (Laken ' EU and Quatar ' WTO). How often and when do media report on the EU and WTO? In what way do they report on them? Political legitimacy is not just a matter of structures being more or less democratic. It is equally concerned with the way these political institutions are perceived. In this respect, the attitudes of the population towards the EU and WTO are very significant. Based on existing survey data, we try to analyse the attitudes of the Belgian population towards EU and WTO. These will be connected to the other aspects of legitimacy under study.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Walgrave Stefaan
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Van den Bulck Hilde

Research team(s)

• Media, Movements and Politics (M2P)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The apparatus will be used in several project to scan, print and project pictures and images to be included in presentations and reports.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The EU is confronted with a double legitimacy problem. On the one hand there exists an institutional democratic deficit and on the other hand the identification with the European governance level is extremely low. The combined approach of a conceptualisation of the EU as a multilevel governance system, with a focus on both institutional and cultural issues allows to formulate strategies to decrease the legitimacy problems.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Scientific and policy oriented research within the environmental policy domain Valorisation of expertise Forge the critical mass necessary to build a centre of expertise Education of junior researchers in this field

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Leroy Pieter
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Loots Ilse
• Co-promoter: Sys Monique
• Co-promoter: Walgrave Stefaan

Research team(s)

• Centre for Research on Environmental and Social Change
• Society and Environment

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

In the nineties, the conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, and especially the mass displacements they have produced, have stressed the need to deal with situations of large-scale influx. During the conflicts, the reaction of the European Union Member States has been the introduction of temporary protection for the displaced persons. However, those temporary protection regimes have not been developed in a concerted way but individually. Only now the Member States are working on the harmonisation of their policy towards displaced persons coming from conflict areas. This research will address the measures the European Union is taking or should take for the establishment of a joint temporary protection policy, as well as the efforts for equitable `burden-sharing'. Doing so, two main questions will be tackled. Firstly, aiming at the well-reception of future mass refugee flows, what should be the content of such a common European instrument? Secondly, how can this instrument be fitted into a `comprehensive approach' entailing conflict prevention and resolution in the region of origin? This second question refers to the growing need for the linkage of the European Union's internal and external policy. In other words, how can a temporary protection policy towards displaced persons, principally a matter of Justice and Home Affairs, be linked to the mechanisms for conflict management of the Common Foreign and Security Policy?

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Bursens Peter
• Co-promoter: Van Loon Francis
• Fellow: Sterkx Steven

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

On the basis of a scientific framework the next European Environmental Action Programme will be compared with the Flemish green plan. The aim is to foresee the consequences of the European policy on the Flemish environmental policy and sustainable development strategy and make recommendations for the Flemish government.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Loots Ilse
• Co-promoter: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This research is inspired by the so-called Belgian integration paradox : Belgian governments have always been enthusiastically supporting supranational European integration while at the same time they have been insufficiently able to transpose European legislation into national regulations. What are the reasons for the inadequate implementation ? Is the Belgian implementation process itself influenced by the European context ?

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Vanden Berghe Yvan
• Fellow: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project analyses the political communication between interest groups and decision-makers on the European level and the consequences of the European integration proces on their relations. Communautarisation of policies forces them to adapt their influence-channels. How will this develop ?

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Dierickx Guido
• Fellow: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project analyses the political communication between interest groups and decision-makers on the European level and the consequences of the European integration proces on their relations. Communautarisation of policies forces them to adapt their influence-channels. How will this develop ?

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Dierickx Guido
• Fellow: Bursens Peter

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project