National coordination structures of EU Policy in Poland

Author(s):  
Robert Tabaszewski
Keyword(s):  
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raj S. Chari ◽  
Sylvia Kritzinger
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 107769902199864
Author(s):  
Iskander De Bruycker ◽  
Matthijs Rooduijn

This article conceives of populist communication as a contextually dependent political strategy. We bridge actor- and communication-centered approaches by arguing that the context of issues conditions the extent to which parties employ populist communication. We draw from a content analysis of 2,085 news stories in eight news media outlets and Eurobarometer data connected to 41 EU policy issues and analyze statements from 85 political parties. Our findings show that populist parties are more prone to express populism on salient and polarized issues. Issues important to civil society groups, in contrast, make non-populist parties more inclined to express such communication.


2021 ◽  
pp. 095968012110000
Author(s):  
Barbara Bechter ◽  
Sabrina Weber ◽  
Manuela Galetto ◽  
Bengt Larsson ◽  
Thomas Prosser

This article highlights the importance of organizational resources and individual capabilities for interactions and relationships among social partners in European sectoral social dialogue committees (SSDCs). We use an actor-centred approach to investigate work programme setting in the hospital and metalworking SSDCs. Our research reveals differences in how European social partner organizations coordinate and integrate members in SSDCs. In hospital, European Union (EU)-social partners build bridges that span otherwise separate actors or groups. The findings suggest that the absence of bridging efforts can lead to the dominance of a few actors. In metalworking, small cohesive groups are more effective in forming close networks and determining work programmes. While work programmes in hospital represent issues which are on national agendas, in metalworking, they focus mainly on EU policy areas.


Author(s):  
Karolina Borońska-Hryniewiecka ◽  
Jan Grinc

This article offers the first ever comparative analysis of the involvement of V4 parliaments in the sphere of European Union (EU) affairs. Its underlying research objective is to determine what conditions V4’s parliamentary participation in various EU-oriented activities such as domestic scrutiny of the government’s EU policy, the political dialogue with the Commission, the Early Warning System for subsidiarity control, and the green card initiative. Based on the actual scrutiny output, parliamentary minutes, and data from questionnaires, we address the questions: (1) To what extent domestic legislatures act as autonomous as opposed to government-supporting actors in these arenas? (2) Do they mostly act as EU veto players, or try to contribute constructively to the EU policy-making process by bringing alternative policy ideas? (3) What are their motivations for engaging in direct dialogue with EU institutions in addition to domestic scrutiny? and (4) How MPs envisage their own EU-oriented roles? While the article reveals that V4 parliaments mostly act as gatekeepers in the sphere of EU affairs, it also casts a new light on the previous literature findings related to the EU-oriented performance of the Czech and Polish lower chambers. We conclude that, generally, V4 parliaments refrain from fully exploiting their relatively strong formal prerogatives in EU affairs—a fact that can be partly explained by the composition of their ruling majorities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie De Somer

Abstract The EU’s Schengen zone has been in crisis for over four years. This article critically reviews three scenarios on the way forward for the Schengen area that are currently circulating in the EU policy sphere. These include, first, proposals to improve the current rules on internal border checks within the Schengen Borders Code, either through reform or through better implementation practices. A second scenario relates to ideas on increasing the use of police checks in border regions as alternatives for internal border controls. A third scenario links to proposals on making access to the Schengen zone conditional on cooperation and good governance in the CEAS. It is submitted that the proposals in this third scenario are unfeasible for both political as well as legal reasons. More merit can be found in the discussions around the first two scenarios, albeit bearing in mind a number of important caveats.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document