Heads buried in the sand: member states block solutions to the refugee crisis. EPC Commentary, 15 September 2015

Yesterday’s meeting of Interior Ministers demonstrated that the EU’s asylum and immigration policy remains incomplete. This is mainly due to the member states’ inability to plan ahead, their reluctance to adopt binding common rules – considered as a violation of their sovereignty – and their central position in the implementation of EU rules.

spotlight europe #2015/04—October 2015: A Fiscal Union for Europe – Building Block and Not a Magic Bullet

The dramatic negotiations with Greece in the past few months have been a telling reminder of the weaknesses of the euro area. Most of the commentators are of the opinion that if the monetary union is going to be crisis-resistant and stable in the long term, certain very important elements will have to be changed. However, there is little or no agreement when it comes to specifying the "what" and the "how". In particular there are heated debates about the right steps to further integration in the area of fiscal policy. "Fiscal union can create stability only if it includes both credible budgetary rules and some kind of risk sharing", argue Katharina Gnath and Jörg Haas in the latest spotlight europe. However, "whilst it is an important and effective way of stabilizing the euro area, it should not exclude the use of other instruments."

Reactive, Slow and...Innovative? Decision-making Structures and Policy Outputs

Consensus democracies like Switzerland are generally known to have a low innovation capacity (Lijphart 1999). This is due to the high number of veto points such as perfect bicameralism or the popular referendum. These institutions provide actors opposing a policy with several opportunities to block potential policy change (Immergut 1990; Tsebelis 2002). In order to avoid a failure of a process because opposing actors activate veto points, decision-making processes in Switzerland tend to integrate a large number of actors with different - and often diverging - preferences (Kriesi and Trechsel 2008). Including a variety of actors in a decision-making process and taking into account their preferences implies important trade-offs. Integrating a large number of actors and accommodating their preferences takes time and carries the risk of resulting in lowest common denominator solutions. On the contrary, major innovative reforms usually fail or come only as a result of strong external pressures from either the international environment, economic turmoil or the public (Kriesi 1980: 635f.; Kriesi and Trechsel 2008; Sciarini 1994). Standard decision-making processes are therefore characterized as reactive, slow and capable of only marginal adjustments (Kriesi 1980; Kriesi and Trechsel 2008; Linder 2009; Sciarini 2006). This, in turn, may be at odds with the rapid developments of international politics, the flexibility of the private sector, or the speed of technological development.

Hangsterfer Block in 1862 or 1867 at 316 South State St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

Former site of Kresge's. Source: Ray Hutzel

Left: Livery & Sale Stables, J.A. Polhemus & Son, Proprs., Ann Arbor, Mich. Left: Buchoz's Block, Ann Arbor, Mich. Bottom: Orchestrian Hall, Fred Rettich, Proprietor, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Ann Arbor, Mich. businesses. Publication information: Chicago, Ill. : Everts & Stewart, 1874.

Granite block marking the former place of the Haven Elm, planted by the class of 1867 in honor of President Erastus O. Haven.

On verso: Class [sic] to the rear wall of Angell Hall and between Angell and Haven Halls. M-12

Tom Johnson and John Ghindia block for Don Peterson vs Purdue, UM Football, 1949

[Tom Johnson, #76, John Ghindia, #23, Don Peterson, #23]