EUI MWP Newsletter 12
Winter 2017

Welcome to the Winter 2017 issue of the
Max Weber Programme Newsletter

Follow us on Twitter and on Facebook

Feature Articles

Ignacio de la Rasilla del MoralAnswering this question, requires us first to understand the reasons why, in spite of the multitude of inconveniences that émigré scholars face, the UK was, until the announcement of the outcome of the EU referendum, an attractive place to develop an academic career.

 The reasons for this can be classified for present purposes into five categories: the global influence of the English language as the main vernacular of scientific research; the prestige of the British intellectual cosmopolitan and liberal tradition; the hybrid intellectual position of the UK between the European and North-American approaches to academic work; the liberalized and meritocratic British academic market; and the relatively low competition that, until recently, the UK faced from other countries regarding the recruitment of foreign academics. These five reasons will be briefly examined in turn.

The English language has, indeed, long replaced other languages as the modern lingua franca of scientific research. Moreover, some of the most prestigious academic publishers of books and scientific journals in all the various areas of expertise in the large intellectual archipelago of the social sciences are located in the United Kingdom. The role of English as the dominant modern lingua franca for global scientific exchanges translates into the common perception among émigré academics that English is a professionally conductive choice for the pursuit of their academic careers. Brexit will not mean a dramatic decrease in the use of English as the main vehicular language of scientific research in the medium term. Therefore, at least from this perspective, the UK remains an attractive place for foreign scholars.

The prestige of the British intellectual cosmopolitan and liberal tradition is another reason why the UK, before Brexit, has traditionally been an attractive place for foreign academics to develop an academic career. Historically, this influence has been greatly facilitated by the historical position of the UK as a great power throughout the nineteenth century and great part of the twentieth century, the colossal extension of its former colonial empire, the super-power status of its most successful former colony, and the accompanying use of English as the lingua franca for scientific research worldwide.

However, the international prestige of the British liberal and cosmopolitan tradition rests nowadays partly on the shoulders of the multitude of non-British citizens who nurture it through their academic production, their advising and teaching roles in delivering manifold undergraduate and post-graduate courses all over the country. It is not unlikely that many of these scholars may currently be rethinking their professional life-project in a country which, worn out by years of austerity, has turned its back on what, for all its flaws, remains on paper the most advanced value-based and peaceful historical experiment of legal and political integration that a history littered with projects of conquests and subjugation of peoples in the name of religion, imperialist designs and totalitarian ideologies had ever witnessed. For the very same reason, many foreign academics – specially, EU citizens – might well be revisiting their priorities regarding the possibility of joining UK academia. Therefore, at least from the perspective of the traditional prestige of its cosmopolitan and liberal tradition, the UK academic world is losing some of its former splendor as an attractive place for foreign scholars.

The third reason behind the traditional attractiveness of the British academic world is that the UK has customarily been intellectually positioned between the European and the North-American approaches and attitudes toward scientific research. This favourable intellectual cross-bred position will be affected if the UK, as the nationalist overtones adopted by some of its politicians anticipate, adopts an even more marked isolationist and a ‘national interest first’ approach in the years to come. A similar phenomenon is apparent in the United States, in Donald Trump’s election as the U.S. President until 2021.  Non-British nationals based in the UK are, on the other hand, likely to be very reluctant to serve as the scientific hand-maidens of a foreign power that will soon not be part of the EU family of nations. Moreover, a disconnection of UK-based scientists from their geographically-closer EU-based colleagues, risks creating both a sociological and epistemological gap in the relationship of the British academic world with their EU-based counterparts in the years to come. Therefore, to the extent that exclusionary and nationalist attitudes appear to be on the rise in the UK and the United States, and the UK-EU divide may affect the academic partnership across the British Channel, the attractiveness of the UK as a place to develop an academic career for foreign academics is decreasing.

The fourth broad reason why the UK has traditionally been considered an attractive place to develop an academic career is its liberalized and meritocratic, as well as its horizontal, academic structure; a far cry from other hierarchical academic structures in other more rigid and civil-servant oriented European traditions. Although these characteristics may not appear to be prima facie endangered by Brexit, the fact remains that they can suffer under strained conditions in a less comparative, well-funded academic market. Salaries decrease, merit is not rewarded, vacant positions are not filled, new ones are not created, pressure increases on academics to obtain external funding and new top-down managerial structures are introduced - all of these put seriously into question the vaunted horizontal-based collegiality of the British academic system. Thus, maintaining a well-funded UK academic market, which requires the provision of extra UK tax-payers’ funding to replace EU sources, remains, now more than ever, a pre-condition for the UK to remain an attractive place for those wishing to develop an academic career in the UK in the years to come. However, the uncertainty that still surrounds this point reduces the attractiveness of the UK academic market for foreign academics. 

The relative closure, amidst a major international economic crisis, of other academic markets to both national and foreign academics is the fifth traditional reason behind the attractiveness of the British academic world before Brexit.  Nowadays, however, in its search for the best and the brightest, the UK is already facing growing global competition from universities in, among other regions, Asia, particularly from Singapore, Hong-Kong and, increasingly, mainland China, as well as from many EU countries. Moreover, it is not unlikely that EU legislators will devise policies to lure back to the EU many of the highly-qualified EU nationals who are currently employed across UK universities. Therefore, in the face of enhanced academic recruitment competition for scholars who are professionally well positioned in an ever increasingly global academic market, the attractiveness of the UK as a place for foreign scholars to develop their academic careers is downward.

In conclusion, the UK legal academy maintains some of the features that made it attractive as a place to develop an academic career for foreign scholars before the outcome of the EU referendum. However, some of these features are already losing aspects of their former splendor, for the reasons briefly touched upon here.

Dr. Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral, LLB (U.C., Madrid), MA & Ph.D. (The Graduate Institute, Geneva) LLM (Harvard) Max Weber Fellow (Law, 12’) (EUI) FHEA serves as Senior Lecturer in Law at Brunel Law School (Brunel University London)

The present text is an adapted version of a short-piece prepared by the author for a policy-report by the think-thank Britain in Europe  based at Brunel University London.


Andrei PoamaLast Fall, Philippe van Parijs was a Robert Schumann scholar at the EUI. I met Philippe in 2015 when, after having defended my PhD, I decided to spend a couple of months as a visiting researcher at the Hoover Chair in Louvain. Since time was short and everyone’s commitments were plenty, I only had the chance to speak to Philippe a few times. So I was very happy to know that, as a Max Weber Fellow, I would have the opportunity to continue the conversation that we had started earlier, but never really pursued in depth. Needless to say, but worth mentioning for those who don’t know him and repeating for those who do, Philippe is incredibly generous with his time, and always ready to brilliantly engage with his interlocutor’s projects and philosophical positions. For four months, I had the opportunity to meet Philippe for lunch and coffee, listen to his Max Weber lecture, go back to some of his writings on justice, democracy and the EU, and attend his master class. I also had the opportunity to interview him on his work and intellectual biography (see link here).

I learnt a lot from this encounter, and I also came to realize that, for all of our agreement on what the methods and style of political philosophy should be, there is one important point that we disagree on. This post is about this disagreement. The disagreement concerns Philippe’s philosophical position on the relationship between democracy and justice.

Philippe thinks that democracy is merely a tool for bringing about justice. The direct implication of this thought is that, when the tool doesn’t work properly, we should refrain from using it and prefer different (read: better and fairer) tools – say, the small committee of experts and bureaucrats or the philosopher’s imaginative institutional design proposals. Democracy, that is, does not always lead to justice – a thing that seems to be obvious to anyone who is aware of what is going on in Europe and the US today –, and, when democracy can be shown to fail to bring about justice to a particular policy area, we are to prefer other, less democratic policy arrangements. Philippe insists that ‘democratic institutions should be treated as the sheer servants of social justice,’ and notes that ‘if we cannot assume a pre-established harmony between justice and democracy (…), let us stick to justice, and sacrifice democracy.’ He calls this an instrumentalist conception of democracy.

I tend to think that this instrumentalist view of democracy is in tension with Philippe’s own approach to political philosophy and that, all things considered, it is mistaken in and of itself. I believe that, when considered as a general philosophical standpoint, the instrumentalist view relies on two mistakes. The first one is epistemic; it has to do with whether and how we know what a just policy or institutional arrangement is when we see one. The second mistake is practical, and is tied to the way in which political philosophers relate to the beliefs, judgments and opinions of the non-philosophical public.

I’ll start with the internal inconsistencies. I might be wrong about them, and stand to be corrected. But my main thought is the following: most of Philippe’s positions in political philosophy are unimaginable without a background in democratic practice and a democratic way of doing political philosophy. More deeply, his conception of justice – which comes close to Rawls’s conception while fruitfully diverging from it – relies on a democratic attitude and is, when closely examined, democratic in its content. Philippe’s involvement and advocacy for a universal basic income policy (both in Europe and within the BIEN initiative), his fostering of a civic movement to reclaim the pedestrian space in Brussels or his pushing for alternative ways of channeling civic participation and the people’s claim to control and power inside the European Union are all initiatives that are at the same time aimed at justice and nurtured by a democratic ethos.

The fact that these initiatives are both democratic and justice-driven is not a coincidence. Ultimately, the best (if not the only) way to find out about what justice requires – for example, about the kinds of individual and collective liberties that matter from the standpoint of justice and the kind of institutions that are well placed at protecting these liberties – is by resorting to democracy. At the most basic level, this requires elections (both local, regional and national). But democratic practice is more than about elections; it is also about deliberation, and, in particular, about deliberating what justice is. Philippe might answer that I’m making an ad-hoc move and that I’m merely changing the topic by changing the definition of democracy. Furthermore, he might argue that, when democracy is construed as deliberation and not as free elections, we over-extend the concept in a way that will incorporate other values (like justice) and fail to see its possible tensions with these values. In other words, an overly extensive construal of democracy does not allow us to see how a policy can be both democratic and unjust.

There are two ways of countering this reply. First, restricting democracy to free elections seems to be an ad-hoc move as well, as it stipulates an overly narrow definition of democracy. Given that the concept of democracy can be construed in more than one way – and that lots of people think about things that go beyond free elections when they think about democracy – sticking to a narrow definition of democracy seems definitionally problematic. Second, since it seems that different and equally plausible conceptions of democracy cannot be satisfied simultaneously (see:, we should not worry that, when confronted with a policy that can be considered as both undemocratic and unjust, there is no other plausible conception of democracy on the basis of which that arrangement will be democratic. The upshot of this way of thinking about democracy is that it is usually possible to see how a policy can be simultaneously democratic in some sense and unjust. It thus dispels the worry about becoming desensitized about the possible tensions between justice and democracy. 

This brings me to my two more general contentions. The first is that divorcing democracy from justice in the way we separate a tool from its end-product is epistemically unwarranted. If justice is a way of organizing our individual and public liberties by means of institutional arrangements, we need to know what those liberties are, how much they matter in relation to each other and what is the best (or second- or third-best) way of ordering them. The most reliable way in which we can gain knowledge about these liberties is democratic: it involves people choosing those liberties, deliberating about them and taking part in activities that make them real liberties. In the absence of these essentially democratic practices, there is no convincing way in which a person (philosopher or not) could claim to know what the content, limits and reality of these liberties are.

My second contention about the instrumentalist view is that it is practically problematic. This is because it tends to foster a way of doing philosophy whereby the views that the public holds about normative questions (such as justice) are peripheral to the right way of thinking about them. With some exceptions, philosophers tend to believe that the lay citizen’s normative views are not well thought-through, lack conceptual consistency and are not informed by the right kind of reasons. This is a big assumption that is hard to vindicate: while it might be true that the public’s views as expressed through opinion polls are often superficial and transient, this does not involve that, given the right circumstances – for instance, focus groups, online deliberation platforms, neighborhood gatherings, juries, etc. – lay citizens are unable to have well-considered normative positions.

My point, then, is more general. The point is that a political philosophy that takes democracy to be no more than a tool for a just society and takes the broader (non-philosophical) public’s views about justice as considerations that can be dispensed with will, sooner or later, lose its relevance for how people make their collective choices and choose their public policies. If that happens, our philosophical theories of justice will fail to inform current political practice. If, then, political philosophers care about justice, they should care more about democracy, and give up on the idea that it is no more than a tool.


Julija SardelićI was a Max Weber Fellow (2014-2016) at the European University institute (EUI) approximately a year ago. Since then I have moved to my current position as a Postdoctoral Researcher at the School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool. At the University of Liverpool, I am pursuing a research project on the impact of the 2015/16 Refugee Crisis on the politics of diversity and marginalized minorities in the Western Balkans as well as European Union. Yet my current career path, as well many of my future research plans, were to a large extent shaped by my reflections up in Fiesole hills and particularly by dialogues I had with colleagues and friends during my time as a Max Weber Fellow at the EUI.

I came to the EUI after I had been a Research Fellow on an ERC-funded research project, CITSEE (Europeanisation of Citizenship in the Successor States of the Former Yugoslavia, more info: at the University of Edinburgh. During my time as a CITSEE Research Fellow I was working as part of a great research team and still finishing my PhD in Sociology at the University of Ljubljana. The Max Weber Fellowship was then my first postdoctoral position and the point when I started developing my individual research on forced migration and marginalized minorities. During this time, I acquired a lot of new ‘equipment’ that prepared me for a future in academia. I most definitely will not remember all that I got from the Max Weber Programme, the EUI and my life in the Tuscan hills above Florence, still I would like to name a few things. The Max Weber Programme was firstly and foremost about amazing people, both from the Max Weber team as well as from other Fellows, and not to mention the amazing guidance from my mentor and also other people from the wider EUI community.

I remember how scared I was the first time I was filmed during my Max Weber September presentation, and then even more so when I looked at the YouTube video. Yet, this has proven to be an extremely useful exercise, especially because of the watchful eyes of the Max Weber academic skills team. I did not know at the time that I would soon be teaching my first full course and I was very mindful about the advice I was given. And nor did I know how much I would later use the knowledge I got from the workshop on course design. At the Max Weber Programme I organized my first workshop by myself, not knowing I would soon be co-organizing symposiums and conferences as well. All this has been a wild ride many times, but most certainly worth it.

One thing that I found particularly useful were the presentation of the funding opportunities out there for future research projects. I ended up applying for a Marie Curie Fellowship. The information I received from two workshops on funding opportunities (one with the representatives of the funding bodies and the other one with a Marie Curie Fellow) were invaluable. This was then followed by many informal, but also very useful conversations about the Marie Curie Fellowship. Many of former Marie Curie Fellows (who were also former Max Weber Fellows) shared their experiences with me. I spent three summer months during my time as a Max Weber Fellow writing the Marie Curie Fellowship application. After I finished my application, it was crucial that I got extensive comments from two successful Marie Curie Fellows, for which I will always be grateful to them. Six months after applying for the Marie Curie Fellowship I found out that the project was chosen for funding. I will start my Marie Curie Fellowship at the University of Leuven in September 2017.  In addition, just before that, I was offered two other postdoctoral posts, the one I have accepted in Liverpool and one other that I had to decline.

I think the Max Weber Fellowship did give me a lot of new knowledge (as well as wisdom) on how international academia works. It gave me new skills and, as I have described, equipment that I am still using today. Yet there is something more I got from the Max Weber Programme and my time at the EUI as well as the Tuscan Hills above Florence. This is that I was able to meet so many wonderful individuals, who were my colleagues and remain my friends up until the present day. Some of them are still at the EUI, most of them have left. But I am still in contact with them wherever they may be around this world. From California to Singapore, I just know I am always welcome at their doors. As they are at mine. This is I believe a special added value of the Max Weber Programme, which I will always cherish.


Aris TrantidisIn July 2016, I published the book ‘Clientelism and Economic Policy: Greece and the Crisis’ (Routledge 2016). I started this book project at the beginning of the Greek crisis in 2010, when I decided to explore what led to the crisis from a comparative historical perspective. This meant that I had to delve into the historical development of Greece’s politics and the Greek economy at different phases over the last thirty years, and use an analytical narrative and a comparative approach to explore the causes of the crisis and refine several hypotheses about the interplay between politics and policy.  

How does party politics interfere with economic policymaking? Why is it the case that a government abstains from making reforms that are regarded beneficial for the economy? Why does it fail to curb public spending, even when there are warning signs of a looming fiscal crisis ahead?  A major part of the answer to these questions is clientelism. Clientelism refers to the allocation of selective benefits by political actors (patrons) to political supporters (clients). While the conventional literature views clientelism as a bilateral exchange that is more likely to appeal to poor voters in developing societies, the book shows that clientelism is a collective mobilisation practice and can thrive in a long-standing parliamentary democracy in societies with high levels of socioeconomic development. Clientelism is a powerful tool in the hands of politicians who want to cement political support and create a strong and loyal party network.

The book’s findings contribute to the literature on clientelism and inform what we know about the interplay between party politics and public policy. As a political practice, clientelism has a strong connection with Mancur Olson’s problem of collective action. In terms of party organization clientelist exchange helps political parties tackle the problems of political mobilization and internal cohesion. They can now create, control and operate a vast clientelist network. This party network is coordinated both vertically - with the rewards and sanctions the political leadership applies - and horizontally - as members of the group help one another while checking each other's loyalty to the party. Moreover, the development of a clientelist network has implications for public policy. The political network is the ‘privileged’ group in terms of the benefits distributed via politics, and stands at the heart of decision making, being the very core of the party system itself.

My book’s main finding is that the practice of clientelism introduces a systematic bias in the design of economic reforms in favour of preserving clientelist supply. ‘Clientelist bias’, as I name it, is a pattern in politics that has both political and economic consequences. In game theory, the result can be described as a suboptimal equilibrium in which no political party can unilaterally reduce costly clientelist practices. This is because placing limits on the supply of clientelist benefits will upset relations inside the party and, ultimately, threaten its cohesion and capacity to mobilize. A unilateral reduction of clientelist supply by one party would also leave a space for the other parties to occupy. This explains why spending for clients is still increasing, even when a country’s economic conditions are deteriorating and when it has undertaken strong international commitments for policy reform, like the case of Greece throughout the 1990s and 2000s.

Clientelist bias affects how a national economy adapts to pressures for reform under difficult fiscal and economic conditions. In a clientelist system the government cannot shift social alliances or forge new ones in order to pursue necessary reforms and revamp the economy. Clientelist politics may be both highly unpopular with voters and detrimental to the economy, but this practice endures because it serves as a vital strategy for party cohesion and campaign mobilization.

Parts of my book draw on my PhD thesis undertaken at King’s College London. I am grateful for the support and guidance of my then supervisor and subsequently colleague at King’s,  Professor Mark Pennington, Professor of Public Policy and Political Economy. I am also thankful to my PhD examiners, Professor Andrew Hindmoor and Dr. Stella Ladi, who encouraged me to publish the thesis as a monograph. Dr Stella Ladi described the book as ‘a thought-provoking account of the political economy of clientelism in Greece’:

Building on the theoretical tools of rational choice institutionalism and of historical institutionalism, Trantidis manages to outline the historical roots but also the actors’ responsibilities for clientelism in Greece. With a wealth of data from the recent political and economic history of Greece it covers the key elements of the way patron-client relations interfere with economic policymaking.  This study is likely to become an essential point of reference in the literature on Greece.

My book has already been placed in the libraries of some of the most distinguished universities across the world. It has also received favourable comments in a forthcoming book review. Six months after its publication, I am now working on two follow-up research projects. I am exploring the degree to which clientelism is a necessary ingredient for the successful consolidation of populist leaders in power. Populist political forces come to occupy power with an anti-elite, anti-establishment message but, sooner or later, they have to tackle high expectations and address any popular backlash relating to broken promises. My second field of inquiry is the Greek crisis from the perspective of the epistemology of economics. A key weakness of the economics literature is that it lacks the qualitative tools to explore in depth the behavioural adaptations of economic actors who experience policies of fiscal consolidation. Austerity is a shock to their economic calculations and can trigger a wide range of reactions that could deepen and exacerbate the crisis. What is missing is a full ‘mapping’ of the behavioural adaptations caused by austerity in an extreme case, and a theoretical framework with which to trace these adaptations in other ‘milder’ cases. In that respect, I try to document the unintended consequences of the austerity policies in the Greek case: patterns of disinvestment, non-performing loans, capital flight, a banking crisis, higher levels of unemployment and workforce emigration. Austerity produces uncertainty which, beyond the immediate demand contraction, pushes actors to adaptive responses that could trigger a vicious circle of economic downturn.



The Max Weber Programme celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2016. This milestone was aptly marked by an extremely high turnout of applicants. The Programme received 1349 applications, a large increase in comparison with the previous year and a record according to the Programme’s history.

Figure 1:
Applicants to MW Fellowships by region in 2015 and 2016

Further to the high number of applications, there has been another interesting novelty: applications  from Asia have overtaken the ones from North America for the first time, showing that the international profile of the Programme is strengthening beyond its traditional academic pool (Fig.1). Additionally the worldwide reach of the Programme is highlighted by the fact that it received submissions from applicants of 98 different nationalities. The largest group of applicants were Italians (183), followed by US Americans (171), British  (98), Turkish (69), Germans (62), Canadians (59), French (52), Indians (50), Greeks, Israelis, Rumanians, Spanish (29), Polish (28), Russians (24), Brazilians, Chinese, Iranian, and Dutch (21) with the remaining nationalities under 20 applications each (Fig.2).

Figure 2:
Distribution of applicants by nationality

The gender of the applicants is skewed in favour of males (56%). Once we break down the distribution by departments we notice that applications to the Department of Law are the most gender balanced (52/48%) while those to Economics are the most unbalanced in favour of males (Fig.3)

Figure 3:
Gender ratio of applicants by department

Confirming a long lasting trend, the departments of Political and Social Sciences (SPS) and History and Civilization (HEC) together received more than half of the total number of applications with 42 and 29 per cent respectively. Economics, Law and the Robert Schuman Centre followed with a fairly equal share (Fig.4).

Figure 4:
Applications by departmentAs in the two previous calls, applicants had the opportunity to choose a Thematic Research Group (TRG) as an interdisciplinary forum to discuss their common research interests. Alternatively they could opt out of the thematic frame. Most of the applicants opted for the latter option (33%). Among the TRGs, four received a fairly balanced share of applications within the range of 15-18 percent, whilst only 4% of the applicants picked the Tommaso Padoa Schioppa TRG (Fig.5)

Figure 5:
Applications by Research Theme

The composition of preferences for a TRG by department shows that each TRG attracts from all disciplines, although some received more applications from a given discipline (Fig.6). In particular the economists show a strong preference for either the Padoa Schioppa TRG or opting out altogether. Applicants to Law instead mostly opt for two groups: Governance Constitutionalism and Democracy or Legal, Political and Social Theory. Applicants to HEC and SPS instead cover a larger span of themes.

Figure 6:
Applications by Research Theme and Department


The Max Weber Programme Annual Report 2015-16This report covers the third and final year of the Badia era of the Max Weber Programme. Over that period the MWP has continued to grow and diversify. 2015-16 saw the largest ever cohort of Max Weber Fellows – 60 in all, and the first time we had more women than men. Applications for the Programme remain buoyant and the Programme remains extremely competitive, with only a 4% success rate. The programme retains its global character – with Fellows from 27 countries; and remains incredibly successful, even in these difficult times, with 95% having a position by September 2016, when the figures for this report were compiled, and 62% moving to a country other than that of their PhD, confirming our aim of training a new global academic.

The report is also a testimony to the huge amount of training and activity provided and generated by the Programme. As ever, we are constantly reviewing and revising what we offer, and in the coming year we shall be conducting a major self-assessment covering the past three years. However, it is clear that the training in teaching, support for getting published and help with job applications and preparation for interviews and job talks are highly valued, and we have been exploring new partners with experts in these fields so as to extend and deepen our offerings. The Fellows also find the collective experience of belonging to an interdisciplinary community of huge benefit. Working on a PhD can be an lonely and somewhat isolating experience, and the vast majority enjoy and take full advantage of the intellectual and the social opportunities we provide for collaborative research. The move to Villa Paola has facilitated this intellectual community building aspect of the Programme, locating almost all the Fellows in one set of buildings while keeping the Programme at the heart of the EUI.

Read the full report


Are you interested in the MWP alumni network?If your answer is yes be prepared! The MW Fellows society platform is being reactivated. The Platform is thought of as an alumni digital space where current and former Max Weber Fellows can get in touch to organize and take part in joint academic initiatives to enhance interdisciplinary research and individual expertise.

Back in 2011, the Max Weber Fellows Society was founded to strengthen the connections between former Max Weber Fellows. The hub of the Society’s activity is the website The website has some useful and interesting features, but fundamentally relies on alumni to update their profiles and post news and conference announcements. It is our hope that the website can be used to organize social events at the annual meetings for each discipline as well as foster collaborative research projects.

You will each receive an e-mail shortly with instructions to access the website and update your profile. If everyone takes just 10 minutes to contribute to the website, the networking power of 400 MWF alumni can be harnessed.

For more information please contact Diane Fromage.


Transformation, Instability, and Diversity – 11th MWFellows June Conference

Transformation, Instability, and Diversity

We invite applications from current and former MWFs, as well as other early-career postdocs (within five years of obtaining their PhDs) who currently hold EUI Jean Monnet Fellowships or Marie Skłodowska-Curie grants at either the EUI or elsewhere.

For decades the global order seemed engaged – with a few, though significant, exceptions – in a process of integration across every dimension (economic, political, social, and cultural) and on every level (global, inter-governmental, transnational, regional, national and local). Increasing diversity accompanied integration, leading to both stabilisation and destabilisation of societies. However, in recent years that transformation has slowed down sharply, and in some cases come to a halt. Instability and mounting challenges to the liberal order and approaches across every dimension and on every level have replaced what appeared to be a smooth, inevitable, and supposedly benign ‘progression’, challenging historical consciousness. The diversity championed by the liberal order over the past decades has likewise been met with resistance from those seeking to return to more traditional boundaries – whether national, religious, ethnic, gender, or cultural. Is this the onset of a new era, or just the latest, perhaps temporary, development in an ongoing, open-ended transformation of global societies over the past centuries that has been marked by alternating moments of change and reaction? This multi-disciplinary conference seeks to answer these questions from a variety of social science and humanities perspectives (historical, political science and sociological, economic, and legal) and represented through the EUI’s six thematic groupings. The conference welcomes regular presentations, poster presentations or panel proposals related to those thematic research groups, as well as contributions that address other issues of academic and social relevance. Submissions will be organised in specific sessions by the organizing committee. Abstracts of 250-300 words (including 4-5 keywords) are to be submitted by March 6th 2017. Please send them to Fiona Wong specifying “June Conference – submission” as subject.

  1. Citizenship and Migration
    We welcome contributions that revolve around the following broad themes: welcome and deterrence; immigration policy and constitutional design; vulnerability and capacity; policy and legal responses to the global migration crisis; environmental degradation and mobility; and social relations networks and affects. We are interested in proposals analyzing these and related issues from different angles (international, comparative, theoretical) and disciplinary perspectives, and on different levels (national, regional, international).
  2. Diversity and Unity: Governance, Constitutionalism and Democracy
    We welcome contributions dealing broadly with the combination of social and economic diversity with some form of legal and political unity. Topics may include the past and current challenges of diversity and unity within the European Union, the crisis of legitimacy of political elites, and the transformation and resilience of liberal democracies.
  3. Europe in the World: International Relations, International Security, World Politics
    We welcome contributions that cover any of the following topics: challenges to the rules-based, post-1945 international order; the return of power politics; the domestic backlash against internationalism; and the fracturing of the EU; trends in international/civil conflicts; transnational terrorism; the spread of democracy; leaders and international relations; defence cooperation; nuclear proliferation and instability.
  4. Inequality and Efficiency in Education and Labour Markets
    We welcome contributions that cover any of the following topics: racial, gender and social inequality in human capital investment, education and employment; progress and challenges in intra- household (in)equality; the effects of current financial crisis on households, the labour market and education; long term developments and reforms.
  5. Legal, Political and Social Theory: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
    We welcome proposals on a broad range of themes to facilitate conversation between those interested in various contemporary theories and/or the history of ideas. Topics may include the nature of law; justification and legitimacy; cultural, intellectual, and social history; the relationship of law and politics to morality; social and political philosophy; and applications of the above to the assessment of public policies and practices.
  6. Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa: the Design and Governance of Monetary and Fiscal Policies and Financial Regulation in the European Union
    We welcome contributions that address the tensions and compromises between different levels of governance - the local, the national, and the transnational - as well as between different actors across these levels, in the areas of taxation, debt management, trade and investment policy, monetary policy, and financial regulation.
  7. "Knowledge Society": Interdisciplinary approaches and methodologies
    In this section we welcome contributions engaging with the interdisciplinary approaches to and frameworks of knowledge production in the social sciences and the humanities. Max Weber Fellows, past and present, have often experienced the rewards and difficulties of an interdisciplinary dialogue; at the same time the diversity of methodologies and approaches has enriched our understanding of historical, social and political phenomena. Topics may include historical and contemporary approaches to knowledge production, including themes such as cultural encounter, classification and verification, and the dissemination of knowledge and its uses (and abuses) in society by governments, corporations, or individuals, in historical and contemporary perspectives. 


The Max Weber Programme Welcomes UCL and Natolin College of Europe as Teaching PartnersThe Max Weber Programme is proud to announce that UCL and the Natolin College of Europe have become partners in the teaching abroad exercise of the Programme in 2017. Sadly we also had to say our goodbyes to the LSE, which withdrew from the scheme in the aftermath of the Brexit vote after several years of fruitful partnership.

As in the past, a number of Max Weber Fellows are working towards achieving the Max Weber Programme Teaching Certificate in 2017. As part of their training the Fellows will spend a week abroad teaching under supervision at four top European Universities: Humboldt, UPF, UCL, and Natolin.

  • Three fellows will be at UCL – Musso, Marta (HEC) between 13th and 17th March, Rigo, Mate (HEC) between 6th and 10th March, and Pablo Gracia (SPS) early March.
  • Eight Fellows will be at UPF between 8th and 12th May – Molteni, Francesco (ECO); Goryunov, Maxim (ECO); Greenwood, Jonathan (HEC); Kulic, Nevena (SPS); Menon, Seetha (ECO); Suzuki, Akisato (SPS); Trantidis, Aris (SPS); Chadwick, Alexandra (HEC).
  • Seven Fellows will be at von Humboldt University between 29th May and 2nd June – Van Hooft, Paul (SPS); Bonazza, Giulia (HEC); Kryla-Cudna, Katarzyna Maria (LAW); Rauchegger, Clara (LAW); Tsourdi, Evangelia (Lilian) (LAW); Zeffert, Henrietta (LAW); Lanati, Mauro (RSCAS).
  • Two Fellows have been selected to run a teaching master course workshop at Natolin College of Europe in Warsaw in the Spring – Johann Basedow (RSC) and Stefano Marcuzzi (RSC).

We wish all of them a very fruitful formative experience.


Upcoming Events

Max Weber Lectures 2016-17

  • Wednesday 22 March 2017
    Rhacel Salazar Parrenas (University of Southern California)
    Thematic Group: Citizenship and Migration
  • Wednesday 26 April 2017
    Sally E. Merry (New York University)
    Thematic Group: Legal, Political and Social Theory: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
  • Wednesday 24 May 2017
    Marc Lilla (Columbia University)
    Thematic Group: Legal, Political and Social Theory: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
  • Wednesday 21 June 2017 
    Mary Kaldor (London School of Economics)
    Thematic Group: Europe in the World 


Max Weber Fellows Multidisciplinary Workshops 2016-17

  • 14 March 2017
    'Persistent Inequalities: Studying Gender in the 21st Century'
    Organizers: Ines Berniell (ECO), Nevena Kulic (SPS), Pablo Gracia (SPS), Steven Klein (SPS)
    Badia, Emeroteca
  • 15 March 2017
    'When Institutions Fail: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Institutional Change, Outcome Diversity and Unintended Consequences'
    Organizers: Aris Trantidis (SPS)
    Badia, Emeroteca
  • 17 March 2017
    'All for One, One for All? Multilateral Coalitions in the Fight against Terrorism'
    Organizers: Matteo Faini (RSC), Tine Gade (RSC), Stefano Marcuzzi (RSC)
    Badia, Emeroteca
  • 27 April 2017
    'Determinants of Individual Migration in the Mediterranean'
    Organizers: Tine Gade (RSC), Mauro Lanati (RSC), Sophie Lemiere (RSC)
    Badia, Emeroteca
  • 17 May 2017
    'Translation in Transit: Interpreting Culture in the Modern World'
    Organizers: Jonathan E. Greenwood (HEC), Katalin Straner (HEC)
    Badia, Emeroteca
  • 22-23 May 2017
    'The Return of Economic Nationalism?'
    Organizers: Damjan Kukovec (LAW), Mate Rigo (HEC), Line Rennwald (SPS), Vera Scepanovic (SPS), Gary Winslett (RSC)
  • 'Domestic Sources of International Instability'
    Organizer: Paul van Hooft (SPS)
    Badia, Emeroteca
  • 'Disaggregating Government Expenditure'
    Organizers: Silvia Calò (RSC), Francesco Molteni (ECO)
    Badia, Emeroteca
  • 'Capitalism and Economic Growth: Does Inclusive Capitalism Exist? Lessons from History, Law, Politics and Economics'
    Organizers: Marta Musso (HEC), Mate Rigo (HEC)
    Badia, Emeroteca


Max Weber Programme Conferences 2016-17

  • 10th JMU-MWP Symposium, 
    7 April 2017,
    Badia, Emeroteca
  • 11th Social Issues for Social Sciences Conference
    7-9 June 2017,
    Badia Fiesolana


Hilton RootOccasional Talk by Hilton Root (George Mason University), 16 March 2017

Is modernization dead? Why developments in world politics place an epistemic challenge for social scientists

Modernization theory has postulated a strong relationship between socio-economic development and democratization. The pivotal work of Seymour Martin Lipset triggered decades of empirical research into the causes of development and democratization. Working within this epistemic framework a group of economists in the New Institutionalist Approach (NIE) sought to refine claims about the direction of causality in the relationship between socioeconomic development and democratic change. While the earlier literature argues that socioeconomic development leads to consolidated democratic systems, NIE’s claim is that good institutions with the observance of the rule of law promote economic growth, which is likely to trigger a path to democracy (most notably, Rodrik 2007 and Acemoglu and Robinson 2012 developing Douglass North’s theory). Recent developments cast a heavy shadow of doubt on these predictions. China’s authoritarian path to development, Turkey’s descent to one-party hegemony despite its notable economic growth, and the rise of authoritarianism and populism in parts of Europe are key indications of remarkable divergence and variety in institutional trajectories.

Both modernization theory and New Institutionalism have sought to find positive statistical effects for quantifiable variables. Their analysis relied on the assumption that political systems can converge on an optimal form if they share some common properties, which is what regression analysis seeks to identify. The linear approach to institutional change is therefore additive, in the sense that a measurable change in one pertinent variable is expected to bring an equally sizeable change in output. Social scientists try to identify universal laws of social behaviour and build models that explain institutional convergence. If the explanatory variables are identified, the premise is that convergence in terms of the explanatory variable among countries will subsequently lead to some considerable convergence in the dependent variable.

Drawing on his experience as a policy adviser and fieldwork in directing development projects in five Muslim-majority countries, Professor Hilton Root critiques this linear approach which has become a dominant trend in the social sciences. He also questions whether the key assumptions of the equilibrium models of the senior branch of economic analysis are the prudent way to describe political and economic developments. His book ‘Dynamics Among Nations’ (2013, MIT Press), provides an alternative framework for understanding how structures form and change over time. Instead of focusing on variables independently by ‘holding all things constant’, so that cause and effect could be determined, he argues human societies should be seen as complex systems made up of networks of interacting agents – families, ruling coalitions, governmental bureaucracies, markets, unions – that influence each other within the larger system. The behaviour of one agent affects the behaviour of another, and the resulting dynamics produce novel and powerful self-organizing behavioural patterns that change the system, and create a spiral of feedback loops and linked responses. No equilibrium exists in the sense that is commonly understood in economics. Social actors change their behaviour as the system evolves, and their adaptations cause changes in the system as well. The coevolution of behaviour, function, and structure constitutes the traits of a particular system, and in their interactions the actors form networks that are in constant flux.

With this alternative analytic framework for the study of institution building, governance, and economic policy reform, Root challenges New Institutionalism and modernization theory, and sheds light on the divergent trajectories of China, Turkey, and Korea


Past Events

26 October, 17:00-18:30
Badia, Refettorio

Chair: Alexis Katsaitis (RSC)
Presenter: Brigit Laffan (Director RSC)

The lecture discussed three meanings of Brexit – starting with a definition of “meaning” as narrative, as opposed to explanation, rationalisation or implication.  

Meanings matter, Nicolaidis argued, for which narrative dominates the next two years and will determine not only the nature of the Brexit deal but also the nature of the EU itself.

The three meanings are labelled exceptionalism (“Brexit means that the UK should leave”) a narrative shared by hard-Brexiters and Euro-federalists; scepticism (“Brexit mean that you all should leave”), a narrative shared by Euro-sceptics around Europe and left-wing Brexiters in the UK; and pluralism (“Brexit means that you can leave”).

The lecture explored the ways in which this last narrative can both draw on the other two and help transcend them. It drew on the four disciplines of the EUI and the Max Weber P rogramme, namely history, politics, law and economics.

Watch the video and listen to the podcast of the lecture

Watch the video and listen to the podcast of the interview with MW Fellows Johann Basedow (RSC) and Alex Katsaitas (RSC)


16 November 2016, 17:00-18:30
Badia, Refettorio

Chair: MW Fellow Christine Hobden (SPS)
Presenter: Rainer Bauboek (SPS Professor)

How should we think  about justice within the European Union? As a fair sharing of the benefits of voluntary cooperation between member states? Or on the model of domestic distribution justice, i.e. as the equalization of opportunities between European citizens? Or both? Or neither? In his only explicit discussion of the European Union, John Rawls, the founding father of contemporary political philosophy, takes a clear stance on this issue. The lecture spelled out this stance but argued for the opposite view. And it sketched the implications for the struggles ahead, in Europe and elsewhere.

Watch the video and listen to the podcast of the lecture

Watch the video and listen to the podcast of the interview with MW Fellow Andrei Poama (SPS)


14 December 2016
Badia, Refettorio

Chair: MW Fellow Marta Musso (HEC)
Presenter: Jennifer Welsh (SPS Professor)

About the speaker:
Professor Ngaire Woods is the inaugural Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government and Professor  of Global Economic Governance. Her research focuses on global economic governance, the challenges of globalization, global development, and the role of international institutions. She founded and is the Director of the Global Economic Governance Programme.

She is co- founder (with Robert O. Keohane) of the Oxford- Princeton Global Leaders Fellowship programme. She led the creation of the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University.

Ngaire Woods has served as an Advisor to the IMF Board, to the UNDP’s Human Development Report, and to the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

She has also served as a member of the IMF European Regional Advisory Group, and Chair of a World Economic Forum’s  Global Agenda Council. She is currently a Rhodes Trustee, a Non-Executive Director of Arup, a member of the Advisory Group of the Center for Global Development (Washington DC), a member of the Board of the Center for International Governance Innovation (Waterloo), a member of the Academic and Policy Board of Oxonia, a member  of the Board of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation,  and a Trustee of the   Europeaum.

She was a regular presenter of the Analysis Program for BBC Radio 4, and in 1998 presented her own BBC TV series on public policy. 

Her recent books include: The Politics of Global Regulation (with Walter Mattli, Oxford University Press, 2009), Networks of Influence? Developing Countries in a Networked Global Order (with Leonardo Martinez-Diaz, Oxford University Press, 2009), The Globalizers: the IMF, the World Bank and their Borrowers (Cornell University Press, 2006), Exporting Good Governance: Temptations and Challenges in Canada’s Aid Program (with Jennifer Welsh, Laurier University Press, 2007), and Making Self-Regulation  Effective  in  Developing Countries (with Dana Brown, Oxford University Press, 2007).  

Watch the video of the lecture

Watch the video of the interview with MW Fellows Stefano Marcuzzi (RSC) and Eva-Maria Muschik (HEC).


18 January 2017, 17:00-19:00
Badia refettorio

Chair: MW Fellow Pablo Gracia (SPS)
Presenter: Andrea Ichino (ECO EUI Professor)

Women's increased involvement in the economy has been the most significant change in labour markets over the past century, resulting in clear gender convergence in human capital investment, employment prospects and outcomes.

However, there are remaining gender gaps in pay and employment levels, as well as in the types of activities that men and women perform in the labour market.

The lecture discussed historical forces that eased female labour market entry, as well as current perspectives on the factors that hinder further convergence, including: (i) gender differences in preferences and psychological attributes, (ii) social norms and gender identity, and (iii) work-life balance considerations.

Petrongolo  concluded with a discussion of policy responses and recent evaluations of family policies.

About the lecturer :
Barbara Petrongolo is Professor of Economics at Queen Mary University, Director of the CEPR Labour Economics Programme and Research Associate at the Centre for Economic Performance of the London School of Economics.

She has previously held positions at the London School of Economics, the Paris School of Economics and the University of Carlos III (Madrid).

Her main area of interest is applied labour economics. She has worked extensively on the performance of labour markets with job search frictions, with applications to unemployment dynamics, welfare policy and interdependencies across local labour markets.

She has also carried out research on the causes and characteristics of gender inequalities in labour market outcomes, in a historical perspective and across countries, with an emphasis on the role of employment selection mechanisms, structural transformation, and interactions within the household.

Watch the video of the lecture

Watch the video of the interview with MW Fellows Nevena Kulic (MWF SPS) and Seetha Menon (MWF ECO)


Barry Eichengreen15 February 2017, 17:00-19:00
Badia, Refettorio

This Max Weber lecture looked back at the history and forward at the prospects of the euro as Europe's single currency.  The retrospective portion revisited Bayoumi and Eichengreen's "Shocking Aspects of European Integration" which distinguished a European "core" and a European "periphery" and warned of problems for the periphery (composed, according to those early estimates, circa 1992, of Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy and the UK).  The prospective part looked forward and asked whether monetary union without political union can be made to work, and if so how.

About the lecturer:
Barry Eichengreen is the George C. Pardee and Helen N. Pardee Professor of Economics and Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has taught since 1987. He is a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, Massachusetts) and Research Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (London, England). In 1997-98 he was Senior Policy Advisor at the International Monetary Fund. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (class of 1997).

Professor Eichengreen is the convener of the Bellagio Group of academics and economic officials and chair of the Academic Advisory Committee of the Peterson Institute of International Economics. He has held Guggenheim and Fulbright Fellowships and has been a fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (Palo Alto) and the Institute for Advanced Study (Berlin). He is a regular monthly columnist for Project Syndicate.

His most recent books are Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, The Great Recession, and the Uses - and Misuses - of History (January 2015), From Miracle to Maturity: The Growth of the Korean Economy with Dwight H. Perkins and Kwanho Shin (2012) and Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System (2011) (shortlisted for the Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award in 2011).
Professor Eichengreen was awarded the Economic History Association's Jonathan R.T. Hughes Prize for Excellence in Teaching in 2002 and the University of California at Berkeley Social Science Division's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2004. He is the recipient of a doctor honoris causa from the American University in Paris, and the 2010 recipient of the Schumpeter Prize from the International Schumpeter Society. He was named one of Foreign Policy Magazine 's 100 Leading Global Thinkers in 2011. He is a past president of the Economic History Association (2010-11 academic year).

Picture courtesy of ZYNDOK Centar Belgrad

Friday 9 December 2016, 11:15-17:30
Emeroteca, Badia

This workshop aimed to discuss the actual or potential responsibility of citizens for democratic values and politics at the global scale.

Contemporary politics is inevitably transnational. International relations require pressing attention and careful navigation, but to what extent, if at all, is this the responsibility of citizens? What kind of responsibility do they owe, and to whom? Moreover, how should states balance their responsibilities towards other states and people with their need to be responsive to their own citizens? 

Despite often competing interests, coordination and compliance are required to effectively respond to collective challenges such as climate change, the refugee crises, and terrorism.

Brexit has rekindled a fierce debate between the advocates of national sovereignty and proponents of European integration, and despite impressive progress toward a more peaceful international regime several inter-state relations remain hostile, unstable, or precarious. At the same time, coordination is increasing with far-reaching trade agreements such as TTIP.

Some citizens actively contest the terms of such agreements and campaign, for example, against multinational companies accused of labour exploitation and tax avoidance in developing countries. Yet, tension can arise where citizens’ interests and global responsibilities diverge .

Programme (pdf)


Survey Experiments with Thomas J. Leeper (LSE)

18th January 2017, 9:00-16:00
Badia, Emeroteca

Survey experiments have emerged as one of the most powerful methodological tools in the social sciences. By combining experimental design that provides clear causal inference with the flexibility of the survey context as a site for behavioral research, survey experiments can be used in almost any field to study almost any question. Conducting survey experiments can appear fairly simple but doing them well is hard. This workshop introduced the logic of survey experimentation, introduced common survey-experimental "paradigms" that are widely used across the social sciences, explained how to connect social science theories to the design of experiments, addressed practical and inferential challenges, and included time for participants to discuss and receive feedback on their own planned or completed experiments.


Critical Reflections on Asylum, Migration, and Xenophobia in Europe

24 January 2017, 10:00-17:00
Badia, Emeroteca


The European Union (EU) finds itself in the midst of a ‘refugee crisis.’ The arrival of increased numbers of asylum seekers raises moral, political, cultural, and institutional challenges.

EU member states have not been able to formulate a joint response. While member states at the fringe of the union raised physical barriers in the hope of curbing the refugee influx, others reinstated border controls, thus eroding the Schengen acquis.

Most importantly, refugees are risking their lives to reach EU territory and, once they arrive, often face deplorable conditions that barely meet their basic needs.

This situation has prompted much debate on how the EU should respond to the current challenge, and reap the opportunities that migration presents. Bringing together historians, legal scholars and political scientists, the aim of the workshop was to showcase new research related to the crisis to facilitate a better-informed public debate. Contributions ranged from analyses of xenophobia in Europe, to a review of migrants’ perceptions of the EU, and from investigations of current EU asylum policy, to an examination of international responses to the European refugee crisis at the end of World War II.

Download: Programme (pdf)


National and European Research Funding Opportunities in the Social Sciences for Young Researchers

8 February 2017
San Domenico di Fiesole, Badia Fiesolana

The MWP-ACO conference on research funding opportunities open to young researchers in the Social Sciences and Humanities brought together representatives of European and national agencies and research funding charities who provided Max Weber Fellows and EUI researchers with up-to-date information on research funding schemes in countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Austria and the USA. Delegates explained their programmes and offered advice and insights on the application process.

The last part of the conference focused on top tips for grant-writing.  The presenter shared with the audience the details about application procedures and some practical tips to successfully apply for research funding.

After the presentations, there was time for individual consultations with the speakers.


David Dyzenhaus

7 December 2016, 17:30-19:00
Badia, Emeroteca

“Salus populi suprema lex esto”—let the safety of the people be the supreme law. If Cicero’s maxim is correct, human rights do have limits. In an emergency situation, when the safety of the people is under threat the law that governs is not the law of human rights, but a judgment about what it takes to secure the safety of the people.

Dyzenhaus argues that the juridical concept of the safety of the people includes respect for the human rights of the individuals who make up what we can think of as the ‘jural community’ of ‘the people’.

It follows that emergencies do not so much expose limits to human rights as show how human rights constitute the jural community. Far from emergencies telling us primarily how human rights will or may legitimately be limited, they tell us why human rights limit¾ or better shape¾ the way in which states respond to emergencies, when they respond as states.

About the speaker:
David Dyzenhaus is University Professor of Law and Philosophy at the University of Toronto, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. 

This year he is a fellow of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin.

He is the author of 'Hard Cases in Wicked Legal Systems: South African Law in the Perspective of Legality', 'Legality and Legitimacy: Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen, and Hermann Heller in Weimar', 'Judging the Judges', 'Judging Ourselves: Truth, Reconciliation and the Apartheid Legal Order', and 'The Constitution of Law: Legality in a Time of Emergency'.



We are glad to receive and announce former and current MW Fellows’ publications. Due to restricted space this is but a selection of publications received in the last few months.

  • The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development. An International and Comparative ReviewSylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor (RSCAS 2015-16), ‘Revisiting the effect of regional integration on African trade: evidence from meta-analysis and gravity model’, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development. An International and Comparative Review, Volume 26, 2017 - Issue 2
  • Citizenship as cultural: Towards a theory of cultural citizenshipJean Beaman (SPS 2012-13), ‘Citizenship as cultural: Towards a theory of cultural citizenship’, Sociology Compass, DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12415
  • Giulia Bonazza (HEC 2016-17),‘Schiavi a Roma tra non libertà e libertà,’ [‘Slaves in Rome between Freedom and Non Freedom’], Parolechiave 55 (2016): 109-119.
  • Designing stakeholder consultations: Reinforcing or alleviating bias in the European Union system of governance?Adriana Bunea (SPS 2013-14), ‘Designing stakeholder consultations: Reinforcing or alleviating bias in the European Union system of governance?’, European Journal of Political Research, DOI: 10.1111/1475-6765.12165
  • Who monitors the monitor? Effect of party observers on electoral outcomesAgustin Casas (SPS 2011-12), ‘Who monitors the monitor? Effect of party observers on electoral outcomes’, Journal of Public Economics, Volume 145, January 2017, Pages 136–149
  • Un Fachoda en mer d’Oman à la veille de l’Entente cordiale ? L’affaire du dépôt de charbon (1898-1899)Guillemette Crouzet (HEC 2015-16), ‘Un Fachoda en mer d’Oman à la veille de l’Entente cordiale ? L’affaire du dépôt de charbon (1898-1899)’, Relations internationales 2016/2 (n° 166)
  • Daniel Hershenzon (HEC 2011-12),The Political Economy of Ransom in the Early Modern Mediterranean,’ Past & Present 231 (2016): 61-95.
  • The long arm of childhood circumstances on health in old age: Evidence from SHARELIFERasmus Hoffmann (SPS 2008-09), ‘The long arm of childhood circumstances on health in old age: Evidence from SHARELIFE’, Advances in Life Course Research, (with Pakpahan E, Kröger H ) 2016, 31:1-10.
  • On the Rights of Warlords: Legitimate Authority and Basic Protection in War-Torn SocietiesPablo Kalmanovitz (LAW 2013-15), ‘On the Rights of Warlords: Legitimate Authority and Basic Protection in War-Torn Societies’ (with Rober A.Blair), American Political Science Review, DOI:
  • Pablo Kalmanovitz (LAW 2013-15), ‘Sovereignty, Pluralism, and Regular War: Wolff and Vattel’s Enlightenment Critique of Just War’, Political Theory, 1–24, 2017,
  • Between Charisma and Domination: On Max Weber's Critique of DemocracySteven Klein (SPS 2016-17) ‘Between Charisma and Domination: On Max Weber's Critique of Democracy,’ Journal of Politics.
  • Institutional Pioneers in World Politics: Regional Institution Building and the Influence of the European Union.Tobias Lenz (RSC 2015-16), ‘Institutional Pioneers in World Politics: Regional Institution Building and the Influence of the European Union.’ European Journal of International Relations. 2016, (with Alexandr Burilkov) Doi: 10.1177/1354066116674261.
  • The Franciscan Invention of the New WorldJulia McClure (HEC 2014-15), The Franciscan Invention of the New World, Palgrave
  • David Pretel (HEC 2012-2013), ‘La Economía Política del Sistema Español de Patentes en Perspectiva Internacional, 1826-1902’, Economic History Research, 13.2 (2017).
  • Union members at the polls in diverse trade union landscapesLine Rennwald (SPS 2016-17), ‘Union members at the polls in diverse trade union landscapes’, European Journal of Political Research (with Christoph Arndt) 2016, 55(4): 702–722.
  • Gender and Corruption in BusinessAki Suzuki (SPS 2016-17), ‘Gender and Corruption in Business’ (with Michael Breen, Robert Gillanders, & Gemma Mcnulty), The Journal of Development Studies (2016, online first view)
  • Clientelism and Economic Policy: Greece and the CrisisAris Trantidis (SPS 2016-17), Clientelism and Economic Policy: Greece and the Crisis (Routledge 2016)
  • Bojan AleksovBojan Aleksov (HEC 2006-07), moved to a position as Senior Lecturer in South-East European History, The School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London
  • Emily BaughamEmily Baugham (HEC 2015-16), is moving to a position as a Lecturer in Modern British History at the  University of Sheffield
  • Thibaud BoncourtThibaud Boncourt (SPS 2013-14), moved to a position as FNRS Research Fellow at METICES, ULB, Brussels.
  • Elaine FaheyElaine Fahey (LAW 2009-10), has been promoted ‘Reader in Law’ at City University to  City Law School, City, University of London
  • Diane FromageDiane Fromage (LAW 2014-15), as of February 2017 is moving to a position as Assistant Professor in EU Law at Maastricht University
  • Guillemette CrouzetGuillemette Crouzet (HEC 2015-16), has been awarded the 2016 edition of the book prize Sophie Barluet for her book Genèses du Moyen-Orient. Le Golfe Persique à l'âge des impérialismes (vers 1800-vers1915), Champ Vallon 2015.
  • Guillemette CrouzetGuillemete Crouzet (HEC 2015-16), was awarded a prestigious Newton International Postdoctoral Fellowship (funded by the British Academy and the Royal Society) for 2017-2019.
  • Andreea EnacheAndreea Enache (ECO 2015-2016) was awarded in December 2016 the "Aguirre-Basualdo" PhD thesis prize from the Chancellerie de Paris.
  • Paul van HooftPaul van Hooft (SPS 2016-17), received the 2016 dissertation prize of the Dutch and Flemish political science associations for his thesis on the impact of victory and defeat in war on grand strategy, and the propensity of states to use military force and diplomacy.
  • Anastasia PoulouAnastasia Poulou (LAW 2015-16), was awarded the second prize in the humanities category of the German Thesis Award (Deutscher Studienpreis).
  • Jonathan Chapman and Samantha MyersJonathan Chapman (ECO 2015-16) married Samantha Myers on 27 May 2016 in northern Tuscany.
  • Leonardo SamuelLeonardo Samuel was born on 25 September 2016 to Silvia Calò (RSC 2015-17) and James Cross (SPS 2012-13).
  • MathildaMathilda was born on 7 November 2016 to Johanna Gereke and Nan Zhang (SPS 2014-2016).
  • Cosimo AloisCosimo Alois was born on 13 January 2017 to Zoe Lefkofridi (SPS 2013-15) and Herwig.

The MWP Newsletter is a platform for current and former Fellows to share their news and short articles about their academic experience. Please send them to