What priorities for the new European agenda on migration? CEPS Commentary, 22 April 2015

In the wake of the latest tragic drownings in the Mediterranean, in which some 900 immigrants lost their lives, and with a view to the extraordinary EU Summit on April 23rd, this Commentary argues that any short, medium and long-term EU migration policy priorities should start by unequivocally setting out their founding and operational principles. This step would be closely followed by implementation of effective action on the ground aimed at meeting the realities and alleviating the hardship.

The EU’s Response to the Refugee Crisis: Taking Stock and Setting Policy Priorities. CEPS Essay No. 20, 16 December 2015

What have been the most important EU policy and legal responses to the 2015 refugee crisis? Is Europe taking effectively responsibility in compliance with its founding principles? This Essay takes stock of the main results and policy outputs from the EU’s interventions in the refugee crisis. It critically highlights the outstanding policy dilemmas confronting the adopted instruments and puts forwards a set of policy priorities to guide the next phases of the European Agenda on Migration.

Balancing Priorities and Emergency Measures: Luxembourg’s Council Presidency. EPIN Commentary No. 30/15 January 2016

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg held the reins of the EU Council presidency between 1 July and 31 December 2015. This was the 12th time that the second-smallest and the richest EU member state1 held the rotating Council presidency. As one of the founding members of the EU, Luxembourg has sound experience to bring to this role. It was, however, their first presidency since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and its introduction of the trio presidency format, this time including Italy and Latvia. Under the slogan ‘A Union for the Citizens’, Luxembourg had the task of concluding certain major dossiers before the end of the trio’s term and was able to contribute to its overarching agenda, especially regarding the priorities of financial stability, growth stimulation and the digital agenda.

China’s foreign direct investments within the ‘16+1’ cooperation formula: strategy, institutions, results. OSW Commentary Number 191|27.11.2015

The ‘16+1’ formula of cooperation between the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and China was launched in 2012. One of its priorities involved increasing the inflow of China’s foreign direct investments (FDI) to the region. China has been interested in carrying out investments which are likely to help Chinese companies gain competitive advantage in areas such as advanced technologies, recognizable brands and distribution channels. The following sectors were identified as areas of priority importance in CEE: construction and modernisation of transport infrastructure, including motorways; development of the network of railways, airports and sea ports; energy, in particular renewable sources of energy and nuclear energy; companies trading in commodities; the food production sector. China’s strategy mainly involves purchasing existing companies, preceded by cherry picking the most favourable candidates for investment, rather than making large greenfield investments.

China's new Government: Priorities, Programs, Reform Signals. Asia Policy Brief 2013/02, May 2013

Never before has any change of leadership in China drawn this much international attention. The composition of the new party and state leadership in China is the result of many years of probing and negotiating within the top levels of the Communist Party. New priorities and leadership styles may cause fundamental shifts in the mechanisms of governance during the decade that China’s new leadership will be in control. Thus, the installation of a new government in China has potentially stronger long-term effects than most government turnovers in Western Democracies.

Competitive Representative Claimsmaking: Party Politicians and Institutional Factors in the Case of EU Budget Negotiations

This study provides an empirical comparative case study of representative claims-making in EU budget negotiations. Two questions are addressed in this paper. First, the paper asks what the role of elected or appointed partisan politicians is in comparison to other representatives. This question is relevant given the reported increasing importance of non-elected representatives. Secondly, the paper asks what the influence of institutional factors is on the practice of representative claims-making. As representative claims-making unfolds in the public sphere, the institutional factors of the public sphere may affect both the claimants it provides a platform for as well as constituencies represented. The paper finds that politicians continue to perform a crucial role in representation, both with regards to their prominence in the public sphere and with regards to the plurality of constituencies represented in their claims. Although institutional factors clearly affect claimants, there are much less pronounced – though noticeable – differences in the constituencies represented in different public spheres. The overall picture is one of a highly plural representative space in which multiple claimants compete with each other to get their message across. In doing so, claimants address the interests of multiple constituencies. It may well be the inherent competition among claimants, fostered by institutional factors, that ensures the plurality of the EU representative space.