The European Green Deal: What Prospects for Governing Climate Change With Policy Monitoring?

The European Green Deal (EGD) puts forward and engages with review mechanisms, such as the European Semester and policy monitoring, to ensure progress towards the long-term climate targets in a turbulent policy environment. Soft-governance mechanisms through policy monitoring have been long in the making, but their design, effects, and politics remain surprisingly under-researched. While some scholars have stressed their importance to climate governance, others have highlighted the difficulties in implementing robust policy monitoring systems, suggesting that they are neither self-implementing nor apolitical. This article advances knowledge on climate policy monitoring in the EU by proposing a new analytical framework to better understand past, present, and potential future policy monitoring efforts, especially in the context of the EGD. Drawing on Lasswell (1965), it unpacks the politics of policy monitoring by analysing <em>who </em>monitors,<em> what</em>,<em> why</em>,<em> when</em>,<em> and with what effect(s)</em>. The article discusses each element of the framework with a view to three key climate policy monitoring efforts in the EU which are particularly relevant for the EGD, namely those emerging from the Energy Efficiency Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive, and the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (now included in the Energy Union Governance Regulation), as well as related processes for illustration. Doing so reveals that the policy monitoring regimes were set up differently in each case, that definitions of the subject of monitoring (i.e., public policies) either differ or remain elusive, and that the corresponding political and policy impact of monitoring varies. The article concludes by reflecting on the implications of the findings for governing climate change by means of monitoring through the emerging EGD.

Return Migrants Reintegration Projects in West Africa: Critical Notes on the Sahel

Migration issue is more than ever on the agenda of global concerns, particularly with regard to Africa, even though human mobility remains essentially internal on the African continent and rooted in centuries-old circulatory traditions. While a large literature emphasizes the criminalization of migration from the South to the North, but also the policies of outsourcing borders and the control of flows, the links between migration and development are still poorly studied, particularly with regard to the returnees, expelled and other categories (re) integration. However, return migrants are often at the heart of different logics and realities in tension, especially in the context of various reintegration projects, with mixed results. This paper contributes to rethink critically the public policies of reintegration of return migrants in Sub-Saharan Africa as a component of the European Union governance of migration, and in a context of regional free movement promotion. It is based on a combined analysis of some projects implemented as part of the transfer of European migration governance policies and measuring the scope, but also their inconsistencies.

The Night Wolves : Klub Motor Patriotis Milik Rusia

In February 2014, The Night Wolves Motorcycle Club, Rusia’s first and largest Motorcycle Club, became one of the Non-state Actors who played a role in Rusia’s military operation to annex Crimea although in 1989 they protested against the Soviet Union governance and called for freedom of the people. This paper aimed to explore the evolution of the Night Wolves Motorcycle Club from the protester of Russia’s government to a patriotic organization who support the government, describe the ideology of the Night Wolves motorcycle club, and analyzes the role of the Night Wolves motorcycle club in Ukraine. In addition, this article will explore the Rusian’s “Putin’s Sistema” as a way to outsource the non-state actors to help Rusia in any of its policy which talks about the reason why an actor in international scope is doing something based on its ideology and norm. This paper will use social movement as its theory.

2. Theories of EU Governance

This chapter examines theories of European Union governance. As European integration progressed, the academic focus began to shift from explaining the integration process to understanding the EU as a political system. As such, EU scholars increasingly drew on approaches from the study of domestic and comparative politics. This chapter surveys a number of approaches that focus on the EU as a political system. These approaches are quite varied and include new institutionalism, governance, and policy network approaches. At the end of the chapter attention is turned to some of the overall characterizations of EU governance that also offer valuable insights: supranational governance; new intergovernmentalism; and differentiated integration.

Industrial legislation in Australia in 2019

In this 2019 electoral year, a federal Morrison Liberal Government was returned to power with little in the way of an industrial agenda. It failed to implement its key legislation, which mainly included reform to union governance and changes to religious freedom in the workplace. Meanwhile, the state governments, particularly the Victorian Andrews Labor Government, reviewed a swathe of labour law, including wage theft, industrial manslaughter, owner–driver legislation and workers' compensation laws and implemented a host of progressive changes. This year has also seen the continuation of a key policy trend, observable at both state and federal levels of government, towards regulation of aspects of industrial relations by the state that were once exclusively the province of employers and trade unions through a twentieth-century system of conciliation and arbitration.

Europeanization of Political Structures and Public Policies

This chapter focuses on the impact of European Union governance on the Spanish polity. More specifically, the research question that guides the chapter is the following: What consequences and effects have Spain’s membership of the EEC/EU had on the institutional evolution of the Spanish Political System? The chapter deals mainly with the impact on the main political arenas, policy structures as well as on the contents of the more Europeanized public policies. The chapter shows that there has been significant Europeanization of the main Spanish political arenas (legislature, executive, and judiciary) over the last decades. Moreover, the chapter also shows that the EU integration process has introduced a gradual adaptation process and relevant innovations within Spanish public policies, particularly those related to the construction of the European market as well as with the construction of the Economic Union.

European Union Governance

The term “governance” refers to interactive forms of political steering, characterized by the coordination of a wide spectrum of actors in pursuit of common goals (e.g., Rhodes, 1996; Pierre & Peters, 2000, 2005; Kooiman, 2003; Torfing, Peters, Pierre, & Sörensen, 2013; Ansell & Torfing 2016). Governance processes involve multiple actors and institutions into cooperative relationships and network structures. The corresponding steering mechanisms may range from hierarchical rule to mere persuasion. The governance perspective appeared particularly suited to analyze political steering in the European Union (EU). The Union is not sovereign; it therefore developed steering mechanisms that do not (or only partly) rely on formal competences and hierarchical rule. The evolving system of European governance constituted the EU as a multilevel polity, held together by interlocking relationships of policy coordination and cooperation (Marks et al., 1996; Hooghe & Marks, 2001; Piattoni, 2010). Scholarly reflection on EU governance evolved comparatively late during the 1990s (Hix, 1998); it proliferated after the turn of the century, when the European Union introduced the so-called Open Method of Coordination (OMC) (Kohler-Koch & Rittberger, 2006). Later, the perspective widened to the whole spectrum of governance modes and its innovative forms (e.g., Sabel & Zeitlin, 2008, 2010a; Tömmel & Verdun, 2009a, Héritier & Rhodes, 2011). Yet salient issues remained under-researched, particularly the power dimension of EU governance (Torfing et al., 2013, pp. 48–70).