EUI MWP Newsletter 11
Summer 2016

Welcome to the Summer 2016 issue of the
Max Weber Programme Newsletter

Follow us on Twitter and on Facebook

Feature Articles

The Villa Paola Years BeginAfter three years in the Badia, the MWP is on the move again and has just taken possession of Villa Paola. Situated between the Badia and Villa Schifanoia, we retain the benefits of being at the heart of the EUI, while regaining the advantages of being largely co-located in our own building, with many of its own facilities - such as a seminar room, that we possessed when based in Villa la Fonte. However, the MWP will still preserve a toe hold in the Badia in the form of a new MWP Common Room within the refurbished Emeroteca and the location of second years in the tower. We shall be producing a self–assessment report on the Badia years over the coming months. My impression from the Fellow surveys is that the incremental reforms introduced over that period have by and large been well received. The Programme has grown by almost a third, with more Fellows than before enjoying a second year. It remains very competitive and with a global reach, with our placement record continuing to be outstanding – all of the current cohort ultimately secured a position. Meanwhile, the thematic groups and master classes with the Max Weber Lecturers have been broadly welcomed, as has the increased flexibility for Fellows to pick and choose which elements of the Programme they take.

As ever, the efforts of Laurie and Alyson in particular are singled out for praise, along with the support offered by the whole Max Weber team – an appreciation for whom I heartily endorse in my turn. Of course, that does not mean that there is not plenty that can be improved. In response to the comments of current Fellows, we are working on ways to increase the amount available for missions for the incoming cohort, and to improve the thematic groups and the contact with departments. Hopefully, the new building will also facilitate interactions among Fellows and the sense of intellectual community, which are among those aspects of the Programme they continue to appreciate the most. So I look forward to at least three more years as Director inaugurating the Villa Paola era of the Programme.


Sylvanus AfesorgborIt is a popular claim in sanctions literature that the imposition of economic sanctions on target states is a double-edged sword that slays both the innocent civilians and political or economic elites alike. At the micro level, many studies have demonstrated that the imposition of sanctions affects different segments of the population. Notably, these studies have shown that the imposition of sanctions increases state-sponsored repression, contributes to the worsening humanitarian conditions of the civilian population, curtails the political and civil rights of citizens, exposes women to severe economic conditions in the target states, while democratic freedom deteriorates. More intriguing is the finding that the UN sanctions on Iraq resulted in more than a doubling effect on infant and under-five mortality rates. Similarly, it was reported that the US sanctions against Cuba contributed to a fall in nutritional value, rising infectious diseases, and violent deaths for the adult and aged population.

Departing from this strand of literature, which focuses on the micro-economic consequences of sanctions on the target states, our research examines whether there is any macro-economic evidence at the cross-country level that the imposition of sanctions has a deleterious effect on the overall measure of income inequality. More interesting, it also examines which segment of the population suffers the most in terms of loss of income share, as well as whether the employment of different instruments of sanctions have a differential effect on income inequality.

Relying on the widely-used Economic Sanctions Reconsidered database from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, as well as on the Gini-coefficients and income shares of populations belonging to various income quintiles from the Standardized World Income Inequality Data (SWIID) and the World Institute for Development Economic Research (WIDER), we test our hypotheses using the fixed effect panel estimator. Our empirical approach was robust as we used different quantitative methods to minimize any possible endogeneity between the imposition of sanctions and income inequality. In all, our study comprised of a cross-country analysis of 68 target states, spanning the period 1960-2008.

Our results provide robust macro-economic and empirical evidence that the imposition of sanctions exacerbates the income distribution in the target states. We find that the imposition of sanctions has a heterogeneous effect on different segments of the population. More precisely, sanctions have a negative effect on three of the lowest income groups by reducing their income shares but there is a positive effect on the income share of the population in the highest income group. Thus, the imposition of sanctions increases the share of income favorably toward the highest income quintile and unfavorably toward those in the lowest income quintiles. This means that the imposition of sanctions makes the poor poorer and the rich richer.

We identify three main plausible reasons why sanctions skew the income distribution in an even manner. First, the isolation of sanctioned states enables the governments to veil their economic and repressive policies from the international community. Second, the political/economic elites could use the period of isolation to extract sanction rent and only use the rent to support themselves and their ‘selectorate’. Third, international organizations’ endeavors to reach out to the oppressed and poor in sanctioned states are sometimes constrained because the political elites may see them as appendages of the sanctioning states who may engage in espionage activities.

Focusing on the different instruments of sanctions, our results point to varying effects on income inequality. We find the use of financial sanctions has a more pronounced adverse effect compared to trade sanctions. This may be because, unlike trade sanctions, financial sanctions are difficult to circumvent. In addition, developing countries are also largely dependent on remittances and this channel of social protection is cut off with a ban on financial transfers.

In conclusion, the results from this paper are very relevant to current global governance as we witness the re-emergence of the sanction decade. The established link between income inequality and economic sanctions, in particular, the adversarial effect of sanctions on income distribution, sheds light on the effects of sanctions against target economies going beyond the intended political goal and setting the target states backward more than is intended. Thus, senders need to be made aware that their actions have an impact that is unintended or unfairly harmful. The target states, on the other hand, should be cautioned about ignoring the effects on income distribution that are a result of the imposition of sanctions, should they take too long to comply with the demands of the sanctioning states.

*Summary of a publication in World Development, 2016, 83, 1-11


Catherine FletcherMost academics read reviews of their books with some trepidation. They can console themselves, though, that while a bad review might hurt professionally, it’s unlikely to be read outside a limited group of peers. Once you start writing for a wider audience, life is very different. In May this year, The Economist tweeted their review of my book to fourteen million followers. Fortunately it was a good one: they said The Black Prince of Florence, my biography of Alessandro de’ Medici (1511/12-1537) would make ‘a riveting TV series’.

Since my time as a Max Weber Fellow in 2010-11, my work has straddled academia and more popular history. Five years on from the end of my two years of postdoctoral research (the first at the British School at Rome, the second at the EUI), it's interesting to look back at how I got here.

It can be hard to see the value of postdoctoral experience amid the frantic work applying for jobs, but between my two fellowships I learnt a lot that I've brought to bear on this project. Working alongside artists and art historians at the BSR I absorbed more than I appreciated at the time about visual and spatial culture, themes that became important to my later work. The EUI gave me an opportunity to think about the city of Florence, its places and history, that was invaluable when I came to write about the spaces that the people in The Black Prince inhabited.

During my Max Weber Fellowship, like most postdoctoral researchers, I was on the job market (and a very difficult job market at that, a couple of years after the economic crash). I was in a dash to finish my first book. But in part because finding academic employment was proving so tough, I'd decided to do something a bit unusual for my first monograph. I wrote a trade history book – one aimed at a broad audience, not just academics. Prior to my PhD I’d worked in the media, so I was accustomed to writing for general readers, and enjoyed it (and besides, I thought, it would give me a financial cushion if I needed to take a year of part-time work).

That book, Our Man In Rome, was an account of the diplomacy behind Henry VIII’s ‘divorce’ from Catherine of Aragon, told largely from the point of view of Henry’s chief agent at the papal court. One of the main reasons Henry didn't get his divorce was because the Pope, Clement VII de’ Medici, was seeking an alliance with Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and nephew of the wife Henry was hoping to leave. He wanted that alliance so as to get his own Medici nephews back into power in Florence. One of those nephews – Alessandro – became the first of the family to rule Florence as its duke, provoking in the process a murderous rivalry with an elder cousin. Alessandro, who was illegitimate, is also of historical interest because of the tradition that his mother was of African descent. Hence, The Black Prince of Florence.

While I was a fellow at the EUI I did some work with an English-language theatre company based in Florence, who were planning a production of Othello. For financial reasons the show didn't go ahead, but the discussions prompted me to begin reading on the topic of race in the Renaissance. I was also interested, at the time, in the presentation of Florence’s past to the public, and I was struck by the absence of discussion of race and ethnicity in the city’s museums. (The Palazzo Medici-Riccardi, for example, has a marvellous interactive installation to explore Benozzo Gozzoli’s frescoes of the Chapel of the Magi. But while it labels every variety of angel in the images, it provides no information at all about the figure of a black African archer depicted in the procession.) In the market for public history jobs, I had been reading about debates in museology in the USA, Australia and the UK, where practitioners were being confronted with hard questions about how to present histories of slavery, colonialism and empire.

So for various reasons Alessandro’s story was at the back of my mind. But I put it on hold for a couple of years, partly because I wanted to finish publishing the academic research on diplomacy that I'd done during my doctorate and postdoc years. Fast-forward to 2013, and I was discussing what to write next.

Trade publishing is quite different from its academic counterpart. Subjects that are considered commercially viable are relatively limited. History bestsellers are often about one or other World War, about a Great Man with name recognition among the broader public (in the UK, Henry VIII, or in the USA, Lincoln). The promise of a book that connected the well-known Medici family plus the starry support of Machiavelli and Michelangelo alongside much lesser-known facets of Renaissance history proved attractive, and I decided to go for it.

The British academic context lends itself to this approach because of what's known as the ‘impact agenda’. The ‘Research Excellence Framework’ (REF), a mechanism for assessing the quality of academic research, requires academic departments to submit case-studies of their impact outside academia – economic, policy, social or cultural. For historians, trade publishing is one potential route to that impact.

Public engagement is also encouraged by the national research funders. For the past five years, the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council has run a joint scheme with the BBC under the title ‘New Generation Thinkers’ to encourage early career researchers (up to eight years post-PhD) to present their work to the public. It’s popular and highly competitive, with a success rate of around 2%. Participants range from final-year PhD students hoping to move into alt-ac careers to established academics with considerable experience in public engagement. I was selected for the scheme in 2015 and have since contributed to programmes on Radio 3 and 4, as well as a short film for BBC Arts. A ‘riveting TV series’ is still in the future, but we’re working on it.

The Black Prince of Florence: The Spectacular Life and Treacherous World of Alessandro de’ Medici is published by Bodley Head in the UK. The US edition, from Oxford University Press, will be out in September.

Follow Catherine on Twitter @cath_fletcher


Zsofia Lorand09 June 2016

Summary by Zsófia Lóránd (HEC 2015-2016)

Invited speakers:
Juliana Bidadanure (Assistant Professor, Stanford University, SPS 2014-2015), Diana Georgescu (Lecturer in History, UCL, HEC 2014-2015), Annaïg Morin (Assistant Professor, Copenhagen Business School, ECO 2012-2013), Mariely Lopez-Santana (Associate Professor, George Mason University, SPS 2006-2007), Cristina Poncibò (Professor in Comparative Law, University of Turin, LAW 2006-2007)

Concept and moderation:
Zsófia Lóránd (current MWF HEC), Julija Sardelić (SPS 2014-2016)

To celebrate the 10 year anniversary of the MWP and to contribute to the ongoing debates at the EUI on gender and inequality in academia, we invited five successful former Max Weber Fellows to discuss the topic. With my fellow organizers on the committee of the MW Conference and the moderator of the round table, Julija Sardelić, we felt that successful women reflecting on the difficulties in light of their triumph over them can be empowering and thought provoking.

The round table was based on two broad questions, in order to give space to the ideas of the participants and give those present in the room a chance to discuss the professional, the personal, and the political. The initial question asked about the ways in which gender and inequalities in academia should be discussed, the reflection on personal experiences with regard to one’s gender and the intersection between these experiences and other marginalized positions the round table participants have to face. We also asked the participants how their choice of research was affected by their personal position and how they experience their position in the field with this topic. Here I will only summarize the ideas I found most intriguing, adding some of the comments from the audience during the Q&A: the 40 minute discussion with former and current MWFs and the EUI community is living proof that there is a lot of knowledge and experience to dismantle gender inequality, if we take it seriously.

The discussion started out with Julija Sardelić’s recollection from her BA studies about the sexist remarks of a professor who suggested that she was too good a student for a woman and should focus more on kitchen work than her studies. The story rang a bell in several participants’ heads. Sexist comments and biases play an important part in the exclusion of women from some fields and positions of power. As Juliana Bidadanure pointed out, we need to identify the factors that lead to women and people of colour being kept away or staying away from philosophy as a discipline. At the beginning of their studies, young women are interested in philosophy. There are various factors that may explain why they disappear later: from outright discrimination, to implicit biases, to the lack of female instructors to identify with, to an environment that makes it harder for members of marginalized groups to feel like they belong in philosophy. One important factor has been described by psychologists as stereotype threat, i.e. when someone is expected to perform less well as the member of a negatively stereotyped and under-represented category, s/he will become more likely to lose self-confidence and perform less well. The phenomenon is exacerbated when individuals often find themselves in solo-status – when she is the only woman or the only black person at a conference, for instance. Juliana brought us a quote from the work of the well-known philosopher, Sally Haslanger, which sums up the mechanisms often at play:

‘In my experience, solo status often results in my feeling tongue-tied and ‘stupid,’ even to this day. I watch myself unable to follow an argument or clearly articulate my question on an utterly familiar topic. We all know what it is like to struggle with complex ideas when ‘struck dumb’ with anxiety. What is less evident is how gender and race imbalance creates contexts in which it is more difficult for women and minorities to perform up to their potential. People are unlikely to want to pursue fields in which they regularly feel ‘stupid,’ where they can tell that they are under-performing. But given the combination of stereotype threat and, all too often, solo status, this is likely a familiar experience for women and people of color in philosophy.’

Race and gender, or citizenship and gender, clearly intersect in the lives of many of our round table discussants. Diana Georgescu spoke about different forms of marginalisation and her precarious position as an immigrant in the US: the difficulties with a visa being tied to employment and the difficulties with a job search when unemployed. Mariely Lopez-Santana mentioned the prejudice she faces from her students in the USA for her accent as a woman professor of colour. Cristina Poncibò also drew on her personal experience, as an Italian woman academic in Italy. The personal to her also means to share the experience of one’s own country.

The losses and risks in our private lives are as hard to share as it is important to share them. Julija Sardelić’s early experience with her professor is one example. Some of the participants also spoke of the risks and consequences of having a successful academic career as women. For example, by postponing motherhood, a woman faces difficulties with pregnancy and ageism as ‘an old mother’. Pursuing a career can lead to the break-up of a marriage, which unavoidably puts question marks after the word ‘success’. The fact that the postdoctoral years are often without social security and especially maternity leave, means that many talented your woman academics drop out in this phase and become completely dependent on their partners.

The individualism that characterizes academia, as well as current Western societies, easily makes us believe that we are at fault. Mariely Lopez-Santana read up extensively on research about gender and teaching evaluations, how students assess male and female university teachers differently. ‘This made me realize that what is happening to me is happening to other women too. I was always doing well in small groups, but not so well in larger ones, while in the same classes the peer evaluation by my colleagues was very good. So, I looked into this and found research showing the contradictory expectations. A larger group, where you lack more personal interaction, expects their female teacher to be strict and caring at the same time. And “caring” here means lenient.’ Being both is of course impossible.

That women need to support each other more, need to network more, was a point raised by several round table participants. It was also Mariely Lopez-Santana’s finding that when it comes to citations, since men have wider networks, they are more widely cited than women (not to mention bias in student evaluations). This resonated with Cristina Poncibò’s experience in Italy, full professors working as a men’s club, with almost no entry for women. Annaïg Morin suggested that we need solutions for the inequalities which stem from academia, even if we cannot change the issues outside academia at the same time. Mentoring programs and maybe quotas are options, but also, we could introduce quality audit of the departments regarding gender equality. She brought the example of the Women in Economics network of the European Economic Association, which promotes exchange and cooperation between women in the field.

Diana Georgescu shared her good experiences with support from women. ‘Looking back at my career, I realized that with a few exceptions, the major mentors and models in my life were and are women – this started in high school in postsocialist Eastern Europe and continued throughout college and graduate school. It was mostly women professors who recognized my talent or encouraged me, or even, who wrote me a letter of recommendation. It was a stark realization that we can similarly serve as mentors and models for our women and male students.’

Apart from the fact that academia loses several brilliant women through its sexist discriminatory practices, Annaïg Morin pointed out that discrimination is also detrimental to the quality of research: it happened with worker-mobility research projects, for example, that they simply left women out of the data, as it was more complicated to track down their trajectories. Supporting this argument, during the Q&A session Magdalena Malecka (MWF LAW 2013-2015) referred to research that proves that diversity of scholars from different backgrounds can also advance other epistemic goals. Simply put, more diversity of race, gender, class and sexuality means better research.

Reflecting on this, during the Q&A, Olivia Nicol (current MWF SPS) warned us that structural and individual solutions are both very important. Women can network all they want if the system resists. Most comments from the audience supported this suggestion and demanded structural, institutional change. As Moti Michaeli (current MWF ECO) pointed out, coming from his own experience, mother-focused policies instead of parent-focused and gender-equality focused policies jeopardize women’s careers more than men’s and often lead to the maintenance of patriarchal family structures as well as institutional structures. Several MWFs, for example Aitana Guia and Katharina Lenner, voiced the fact that prestigious postdoctoral programs, such as the MWP itself, should have a parental leave policy at least for immediately after the time of child-birth. Florian Hertel (current MWF SPS) added that it is faulty to talk about excellence in academia and to claim that we can assess it as long as minorities are excluded from and discriminated against in academia. Success and excellence are certainly concepts to be treated with caution, and with Diana Georgescu’s and Juliana Bidadanure’s closing comment I felt that we reached one of the main aims of the meeting: to talk about success but also to talk about the problems by acknowledging the difficulties, to sympathize with those who face challenges, which is by no means victimization. I would say, without this empathy we cannot claim a more just academia and a more just society.


Anastasia PoulouIn March 2016 the European Commission presented the preliminary outline of a European Pillar of Social Rights as part of the work undertaken towards a deeper and fairer Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The Pillar is not meant to introduce new social rights and principles, but rather to complement and operationalise the existing EU social “acquis”, namely the competences and rights in the social field set out in EU law. Understood as official recognition that the reactions to the Eurozone crisis neglected the social dimension of the Union, the Pillar definitely has symbolic merit. However, does the draft text of the Pillar live up to the expectations of providing a counterweight to the economic rationale dominating post-crisis EU governance? This contribution aims to highlight the shortcomings that need to be addressed, if the EU aspires to drive future social reforms via the Pillar.

Objectives and structure
According to the Commission, the adoption of the Pillar pursues two main objectives. First, the Pillar aims to overcome the negative effects of the Eurozone crisis on the labour markets and social welfare systems of Member States. In this sense, it attempts to respond to the widespread criticism of imposed, aggressive austerity measures by highlighting the legacy of the Union in the social field and the protection of social rights. Second, the Pillar builds on the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's EMU, which famously introduced the idea that ‘Europe’s ambition should be to earn a social triple A’. In doing so, the Pillar aims to give greater prominence to social considerations in the coordination of economic policies through the European Semester, highlighting the relevance of employment and social concerns in this governance instrument otherwise seen as a purely economic tool.

With regard to its content, the preliminary outline of the Pillar is structured around three main headings: (1) equal opportunities and access to the labour market (2) fair working conditions and (3) adequate and sustainable social protection. Thus, two-thirds of the Pillar are dedicated to the labour sector. Under these three headings, different principles are spelled out that are meant to operationalize the corresponding rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the social policy provisions of the EU treaties. To better situate each principle, the outline also indicates the challenges that it intends to address. Rather than going into these principles in depth, this contribution makes some general observations regarding the potential and the weaknesses of the Pillar.

Establishing a Pillar of Social Rights would definitely have some merit as a first step in healing the social wounds of Europe. The Eurozone crisis presented an unprecedented opportunity for the EU to interfere, in sweeping and incisive ways, with the financial and social policies of Member States. New instruments and procedures of economic governance have dramatically increased the capacity of EU institutions to impose reforms in national social and labour systems. Being fully embedded into economic governance, however, social policy reforms are decided primarily on the basis of competitiveness and indicators of fiscal consolidation. This is a method that is highly contested in theory and has proven dubious in practice, since it leads to social provision resting mainly on the markets, with public safety nets playing a minimal role.

Against this background, the introduction of a social policy instrument, such as the Pillar of Social Rights, could help to underline the qualitative difference between economic and social policy and to disprove the conviction prevailing in post-crisis economic governance that the collapse of the distinction between fiscal goals and social policy is irreparable. In this regard, the reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights could prove to be of particular importance, since its application in the context of crisis management has so far been heavily contested by EU institutions, including the Commission. Rather than simply restating the applicability of the Charter, the Pillar could put forward some social indicators, such as the Gini-coefficient or the at-risk-of-poverty rate of the working age population, in order to operationalize the social rights guaranteed in the Charter.

Shortcomings and missed opportunities
Despite its potential, the first draft of the Pillar displays some significant shortcomings. The first problematic aspect, which could undermine its actual impact, is its unclear legal nature. Although not decided yet, the Pillar is most probably not intended to be enshrined in EU primary law, for example as part of the EU treaties. The Commission announced that it will need to take account of the legal framework at EU level and of the fact that the Pillar focuses only on the euro area. The Pillar could only be perceived as a serious effort to stimulate the social dimension of the EMU, if it were established as a legally binding document.

Second, even though labelled a “Pillar of Social Rights”, the preliminary outline does not include social rights, but rather social policy guidelines and principles. The language of rights is remarkably absent from the draft document, with the risk that the reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights acquires a purely decorative character. Moreover, many of the suggested principles are in effect marginally more concrete specifications or even simple repetitions of already existing legal provisions. For instance, the third part of the Pillar referring to social assistance and protection reproduces principles already set out in the White Paper ‘An Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions’ published by the Commission in 2012.

Third, on many occasions the social policy principles proposed are suggested primarily to serve the traditional aims of economic policy, such as fiscal sustainability and economic competitiveness. For example, ‘minimum wages shall be set […] in a way that safeguards access to employment and the motivation to seek work’. In the same vein, healthcare systems ‘shall encourage the cost-effective provision of care […] in order to improve their financial sustainability’. Even though social policies should accommodate concerns surrounding efficiency, such as the financial sustainability of welfare systems, they primarily pursue objectives of non-efficiency such as equity, accessibility and the quality of social services. Hence, the prioritisation of considerations relating to economic efficiency carries the risk of blind subordination of social rights to purely market-driven choices, which already dominate the post-crisis European governance framework, instead of fostering the non-efficiency elements of the EU’s social dimension.

Lastly, the choice of addressing the Pillar exclusively to euro area Member States, while leaving the initiative open to other countries on a voluntary basis, is anything but self-evident. The legal sources invoked by the draft, namely the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaty provisions, bind the Member States as a whole and not only Eurozone states. In fact, making the common currency the criterion for deciding the focus of the Pillar, is a further signal that economic rationale prevails over social policy considerations.

In sum, the development of a European Pillar of Social Rights should be welcomed as an attempt to defend European social values in a period when matters within social policy are framed primarily as a burden on public finances and an obstacle to economic success. Nevertheless, the preliminary outline of the Pillar presented by the Commission is still far from the desired outcome. The draft text fails to give concrete suggestions on how to operationalize social rights in the framework of the new EU economic governance and treats social policy as subordinate to economic policies. These weaknesses will have to be overcome, if the Pillar aspires to become a weighty reference tool to drive social reforms in the EU and not just a simple reminder of the existing EU social acquis.

*This article was first published on the LSE Blog “Social Europe“


Florian StoeckelDo social interactions between citizens from different European Union (EU) member states contribute to a shared political community? My own research with 1200 Erasmus students, as well as a number of other recent studies, provide answers to this question and offer new insights on how shared political communities develop.* The results tell us how the Erasmus student exchange program affects the political views of young Europeans, why ‘Erasmus bubbles’ are important, and what exchange students can teach us about the future of Europe.

Public opinion research concerned with a European identity has long grappled with the following puzzle: how is it that a share of EU citizens holds only an exclusive national identity, while another share simultaneously identifies as members of their national community and as citizens belonging to the EU. The latter group –citizens identifying as both, French and European or German and European and so on – makes up about half of Europe’s population, although that number differs between EU member state and changes over time. Whether citizens hold a European identity matters a lot for a number of issues Europe is facing today. For instance, citizens who hold only a national identity tend to be more likely to perceive European integration as a threat to their nation, and as the latest research shows, these citizens are also less willing to support fiscal transfers among Eurozone members.

Recent research turned to social interactions and the role they might play in the emergence of a European identity. In the 1950s the well-known political scientist Karl Deutsch already emphasized the importance of social interactions for a sense of community among citizens. His focus, however, was on citizens of a nation state: he theorized that contact between citizens in a county’s remote locations and its center are important for the extent to which citizens view each other as members of a shared national political community. Does this work at a higher level, that is, can interactions between the citizens of different nation states in Europe help to create a sense of community that transcends national boundaries?

Social psychologists believe that contact situations can be transformative because they reduce prejudice and increase trust between individuals from different groups and backgrounds. By being in touch with citizens from other EU member states in class rooms, shared housing, and, last but not least, at parties, exchange students can become familiar with their peers from abroad, learn about commonalities, and get a better understanding of differences between them. This process is fostered by a favorable contact situation. There are no hierarchical differences between those who interact –because everyone is a student – and the contact situation is intense enough to allow them to form friendships across group boundaries. Contact can therefore decrease the perceived distance between individuals from different EU countries. Students from other countries, who might have been seen as an out-group, could hence be regarded as members of a more encompassing in-group, that is, an in-group that includes several nationalities. And perceiving oneself and others as members of a wider and shared community of European nations is the necessary leap to develop a European identity.

Whether contact in general and the Erasmus program in particular has an effect on the development of a shared European identity has sparked a vivid scholarly debate in recent years. Indeed, research found that individuals holding a more pronounced European identity are also interacting much more frequently with EU citizens from other countries. Yet, the causality might be inverted. Europeans might actually seek more contact with individuals in other EU member states because they already boast a more pronounced European identity; hence, contact would not actually generate a European identity. Several recent cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on this question show an entirely inconclusive result.

To find out if contact has an effect when accounting for initial levels of a European identity, I surveyed 1200 German Erasmus students before they went abroad, after they returned, and again after an additional six months. The Erasmus program allows about 300.000 European students annually to study at another European university without fees and allows them to easily transfer the credits they collected abroad. The participants in my study went to 24 of the 28 member states of the EU, with France, Spain, and the United Kingdom being the most popular destinations. Two thirds of the students went abroad for one semester and one third went abroad for two semesters. Additionally, I collected data for a control group of about 300 comparable students who did not participate in a study abroad program. This helps me to account for any change in students’ identities that might have occurred during the same time, irrespective of a study abroad.

Three results stand out. First, social interactions during a student exchange can contribute to a European identity. After Erasmus students return from their study abroad program, they tend to be more likely to think of themselves as citizens of the EU, they believe they have more in common with other Europeans, and they exhibit greater pride in being European. The control group does not show a similar change during the same period of time.

Second, it is social interactions rather than the mere fact of being abroad that creates a stronger European identity. My survey shows that it is contact between study abroad students and Erasmus students from other countries more so than contact with students from the host country that contributes to a European identity. This is noteworthy, because many Erasmus students live in so-called “Erasmus bubbles” while they are abroad. For instance, in campus housing Erasmus students tend to live with other exchange students rather than with students from the host country. This is often seen as less than ideal, because it involves fewer opportunities for intense contact between exchange students and their hosts. Yet, apparently the interactions between a diverse group of international students mirrors more faithfully the diversity implied by a shared European identity than contact between Erasmus students and their hosts.

Third, the identity change that Erasmus students exhibit after their return does not seem to be just a temporary excitement. Their more pronounced European identity is stable at the time of my third survey, which I conducted half a year after students had returned. Erasmus students also showed more awareness of the benefits of European integration after their return, although the identity change does not immediately translate into more support for the political institutions of the EU. Erasmus students who interact primarily with their hosts do not exhibit a more pronounced European identity, yet the experience still left a deep imprint on them: they are more attached to their host country and they show more trust as well as a heightened feeling of familiarity with their hosts long after their return.

To conclude, opportunities that allow Europeans from different countries to interact intensely can contribute to a shared European identity. The high hopes that European institutions pin on efforts like the Erasmus program do not seem to be unjustified. However, few Europeans experience the EU like Erasmus participants. Even at universities only a minor share of students takes part in exchange programs. If we want more citizens to interact with their fellow Europeans abroad, we need to think about a number of important questions: first, some students in my control group reported that they were interested in study abroad but could not go because of insufficient funds; after all, the Erasmus stipend covers only a small share of the costs of study abroad. Second, study abroad is not yet a standard part of the majority of Europe’s university curricula, let alone non-academic professional training programs. An exchange could become even more beneficial among professionals: a promising example are some local governments that now encourage their bureaucrats to go on an exchange to sister cities.

My study puts an emphasis on the conditions needed for contact to translate into a European identity, but much social interaction among Europeans does not take place under the ideal conditions of the Erasmus program. This raises a number of questions for future research. Tourists only travel for short periods to other European countries, only rarely allowing them to have intense interactions. How much contact is necessary? Europeans from other countries might move into someone’s neighborhood, thereby creating intense contact that was unwished for. When do these interactions create conflict, when do they create a sense of community? New social media make it easy for Europeans to have intense – albeit not physical – social interactions across borders. But is it the Erasmus students that gain another channel to of contact or does the new media open up ways for those travelling less to develop ties with Europeans abroad?

* My study on Erasmus students has just been published as ‘Contact and Community: The Role of Social Interactions for a Political Identity’, Political Psychology, 2016, 37(3): 431-442. The full text is also available on my website:



The Max Weber Fellows 2016-2017The Max Weber Programme is proud to announce the incoming cohort of Fellows for the Academic Year 2016-2017. There will be 61 Max Weber Fellows at the European University Institute distributed among the EUI departments: ECO (10), HEC (12), LAW (11), SPS (17), RSCAS (11). The gender balance is slightly in favour of females (31). The Fellows’ average age is 31.7, and they are of 30 different nationalities. These numbers confirm the ethos of a truly global and diverse postdoctoral programme.

Learn the names of the Fellows of a truly global postdoctoral programme on the Max Weber Programme Website


There are 10 very good reasons to apply:

  • The Max Weber Programme (MWP) at the European University Institute (EUI) is the largest and most innovative postdoctoral programme in the historical and social sciences in Europe.
  • The MWP is open to eligible applicants who are within 5 years from the completion of their PhD, from anywhere in the world, regardless of nationality and including non-EU citizens.
  • The MWP is a global programme at a global institution located in Italy. Like the Fellows, Professors and Researchers at the European University Institute come from across Europe - from Portugal to Russia, and beyond it - from Asia and the Antipodes to North and Latin America, contributing their different academic traditions to the distinctive mix of the Institute. The language of the programme is English.
  • The Programme is among the most selective – attracting circa 1200 applicants each year - in the fields of political and social sciences, economics, law and history for some 55-60 Fellowships.
  • The Programme awards 1, 2, and exceptionally 3 year long fellowshipsaccording to departments.
  • The Fellowship provides a grant of 2000 euro per month plus - when appropriate - a family allowance.
  • The Max Weber Fellows enjoy the superb research facilities of the European University Institute (including an outstanding library, a shared office space, and a personal research fund of 1000 euros).
  • The MWP is unique among postdoctoral programmes in helping Fellows to become full members of a global academic community.
  • Fellows are given training and support in all aspects of an academic career – from publishing and presenting, teaching, applying for research grants and jobs. A particular focus is placed on communicating effectively in English to different kinds of academic audiences.
  • Its placement record is second to none: most Max Weber Fellows secure an academic position in the finest institutions around the world upon completion of the Programme.

Read further details and apply!


The Max Weber Lectures 2016-2017The Max Weber Lectures for 2016-2017 will bring to the European University Institute an impressive set of scholars yet again. We are used to bringing excellence to the EUI so it would hardly be newsworthy except this year seven out of nine Max Weber Lecturers will be women. The number of women in academia is growing and so is the quality of their intellectual contribution to scholarship and society. The Max Weber Programme is very proud to acknowledge and promote their success.

Learn their names and pencil down dates


The Max Weber Programme Teaching Module and Teacher Preparation CertificateWe have worked very hard this year to professionalize the Max Weber Prorgramme Teaching module. We have introduced new elements in the training like a new format for the microteaching, a supervision workshop and a teaching portfolio with the collaboration of Lynn McAlpine (Oxford). This means that we have been able to honour the teaching module for all those fellows who completed it with 3 ECTS or 75 hours, thus granting it an important value for those going onto the academic international teaching job market.

This is what the Teacher Preparation Certificate looks like; it was been awarded to 24 current Max Weber Fellows on 29 June: Many congratulations to all those who have completed the teaching module successfully and wishing them all much pleasure in future academic teaching! For more info please contact the MWP Academic Coordinator Karin Tilmans:


The Weberly HillsOn the glorious evening of 9 June 2016 the Weberly Hills*, the football team representing the Max Weber Programme at the Coppa Pavone Femminile, won the trophy. The captainship of Elena Esposito led them to victory after a heart stopping penalty shootout against the formidable Communards. The goal keepers Lian Allub and Ricardo Estrada Martinez valiantly intercepted two powerful strikes from the opposing team. The delirious crowd of Max Weber Fellows and Team joyfully celebrated well into the night.

* Lian Allub (ECO, 2014-2017), Daniela Arias Vargas, Anna Beckers (LAW 2015-2016), Martina Bozzola (RSCAS 2015-2016), Maria Adele Carrai (LAW 2015-2017), Anna Chadwick (LAW 2015-2017), Elena Esposito (ECO 2014-2016), Ricardo Estrada (ECO 2014-2016), Feike Fliervot, Julia McClure (HEC 2014-2015), Olivia Nicol (SPS 2015-2016), Kenayna Pijl, Stefanie Reher (SPS 2015-2017)


Past Events

Max Weber Lecture by Sarah Birch, University of Glasgow, “The Electoral Tango: The Evolution of Electoral Integrity in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes”
17 February 2016,
Badia, Refettorio

Summary by MW Fellow Tobias Lenz (SPS 2015-2016)
On Wednesday, February 17, Prof. Sarah Birch delivered the fifth Max Weber lecture, titled ‘The Electoral Tango: The Evolution of Electoral Integrity in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes.’

Prof. Birch has worked on the issue of ethics and (electoral) misconduct for many years. In this long-standing research interest, her lecture addressed the evolution of electoral integrity – defined as conformity to democratic standards of electoral conduct in terms of inclusiveness, transparency and impartiality – in comparative authoritarian regimes over time. She explored why elections improve within some competitive authoritarian regimes and not in others. Put differently, she asked: what are the conditions that lead to improvements in electoral integrity? Her main argument was that a combination of two factors is crucial to explaining diachronic variation in electoral integrity: only regimes that (1) show signs of weakening, which a (2) civil society exploits for protest is likely to improve its electoral integrity – conditions that are relatively rare. Her main message was that elections have to become worse before they can become better, an idea she aptly captures by the notion of an electoral tango.

Prof. Birch developed this central argument in several steps. She started with an empirical observation: electoral reform that enhances integrity is generally preceded by massive malpractice, which sparks civil society protest. This observation suggests that electoral reform is driven from below, i.e. elections get better because people demand better elections. Why is this so? Post-electoral protests have risen markedly in the modern period, especially between the 1970s and the mid-1990s, because the context of elections has changed dramatically over time. While electoral malpractice, for much of the past several centuries, operated through the exclusion of parts of the population from elections, this is no longer possible in a world in which formal electoral rights have been widely granted to citizens. In order to engineer results, leaders today seek to introduce systematic bias into the election process. However, this is likely to spark protest because people become angry when they are deprived of rights that have been officially granted to them. Yet, when are such protests likely to be successful? Prof. Birch’s answer: they work when the risks associated with electoral malpractice become too high for competitive authoritarian regimes to bear. Elections provide information to authoritarian regimes – more so than to the opposition – and thereby help to manage the risk of electoral malpractice. However, when their true support is in decline, and cannot be concealed through fraud, the information asymmetry between the regime and the opposition declines, strengthening the latter. In such a situation, a reduction in electoral fraud through electoral reform, and potential acceptance of electoral defeat in the next election, is a likely outcome. According to Prof. Birch, electoral reforms in Mexico in the 1990s and in Serbia in the 2000s are examples of this logic.

Prof. Birch closed her lecture with apt advice for political activists: protest against an authoritarian regime when the regime is showing signs of weakness!

Master Class: Electoral Fairness and Integrity

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 Masaaki Higashijima (SPS) and Stefanie Reher (SPS)


Reva Siegel, Yale University, “Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Constitutionalism through the Lens of Consensus and Conflict”,
16 March 2016,
Badia, Refettorio

Summary Brief by Byliana Petkova (LAW 2015-2017)
Yale Law School Professor Reva Siegel’s lecture, titled ‘Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Constitutionalism through the Lens of Consensus and Conflict’, gave a rich account of social mobilization and counter-mobilization, the role of judicial review and federalism in the United States. In the decades before the United States Supreme Court recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges, Americans disdained, denounced, and debated same-sex marriage. When state courts recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry, opponents passed laws and state constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Reva argues that this fierce conflict provoked argument about the capacity of courts to defend minority rights.

Critics argued that judicial judgments that shut down politics were counterproductive and provoked a backlash that exacerbated political polarization. Conversation about the backlash ranged widely from academics and advocates to judges. These "realist" accounts of judicial review depicted courts as majoritarian institutions whose authority is tied to public consensus.

In her lecture, Reva argued that the backlash narrative and the consensus model of constitutionalism on which it rests simultaneously underestimates and overestimates the power of judicial review. The Court's decision in Obergefell was possible not simply because public opinion changed, but also because the struggle over the courts helped change public opinion and forge new constitutional understandings. Even so, Obergefell has not ended debate over marriage but instead has channeled it into new forms. Constitutions do not merely reflect consensus; they also structure conflict. Reva employed concepts of constitutional culture to explore how constitutions can give contested beliefs legal form and structure conflict in ways that help sustain community in disagreement.

Ultimately, Reva espouses a variation of popular constitutionalism that evokes a responsive view of the law, one that is both constitutional and constitutive for the communities we live in. Her perceptive, if instrumental view of the law, challenges the common understanding of judicial supremacy.

Master Class: Conscience Wars in Transnational Perspective: Religious Liberty, Third-Party Harm, and Pluralism

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 Anna Beckers (LAW) and Anastasia Poulou (LAW)


Philip Pettit, Princeton and Australian National University, “The State in Analytical and Normative Profile”,
18 May 2016,
Badia, Refettorio

Summary by MW Fellow Guy Aitchison (SPS 2015-2016)

Professor Philip Pettit began his lecture with the observation that much recent political philosophy has focused on what the state should do, rather than what the state should be. This is a shame because there is a rich historical tradition of thinking about what a state is and how it should be organised and it is vital that we revisit these issues in thinking about our politics. There are, Pettit said, four fundamental questions in thinking about the state: i) Is the state an agent or not?; ii) Can the state be popularly controlled?; iii) What sort of constitution should the state have?; iv) And should the constitution be presidential or parliamentary?

Following the legal philosopher HLA Hart, Pettit noted that a state exists wherever there is a system of primary rules regarding conduct (such as prohibitions on stealing and violence) and secondary rules that set procedures for determining whether a violation of the primary rules has taken place, coercively enforcing those rules and changing them if required. If we think of an agent as an entity that has a particular purpose and is capable of forming representations of reality to act on that purpose, it is an open question whether some states are in fact agents. Ancient Athens, for example, relied upon a random selection of citizens to enforce the law and – in exceptional circumstances – to change it, and so seems to lack the consistent, systematic approach to law we would associate with agency.

Historically, the idea that a corporate body, such as a state, is an agent arose in the context of theological debates within medieval Italy. The pope argued that although the University of Paris is a legal person, it cannot be excommunicated because it does not have a soul. It is, the pope said, a persona ‘ficta’, meaning a fictional or artificial agent. In the 16th and 17th centuries, Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes introduced the idea that the state must be a unitary sovereign in opposition to their Monarchomach and republican opponents who regarded the people as the ultimate authority over government. For Bodin, law is a command by the ‘res publica' to its members, and this requires a single unitary commander. Since you cannot give a command to yourself, it follows for Bodin that the state must be above the law and there cannot be any other body above it.

Can such a state be subject to popular control? Not for these authors. Although the state begins with a moment of popular control, when the people authorise someone to speak for them, this initial transfer of power is irrevocable. Hobbes added to this line of thinking the influential idea that the people only become a single body through the act of authorisation. Prior to this, they are a collection of individuals, a mere ‘mob’ in a state of nature and lacking a single voice. This argument later influenced Kant, who proposed that the regicide committed by the French revolutionaries was a form of suicide, since in withdrawing power from the king, the people ceased to be. Rousseau, too, argued that there must be a single ultimate sovereign, although his preference was for a democratic assembly of the whole people rather than a monarch.

In endorsing a unitary conception of sovereignty, these authors rejected the republican tradition of the ‘mixed constitution’ derived from republican Rome and celebrated by Machiavelli. According to this tradition, with which Pettit aligned himself, it is possible to have different voices contributing to the making of law, provided there exists some co-ordinating constitutional device to ensure that the ultimate direction is consistent over time. The mixed constitution has multiple agents and the sharing of power with collaboration between different bodies, such as courts, electoral commissions and various other bodies. The mixed constitution, which is the most common state system around today, may be further sub-divided into presidential and parliamentary systems. If the system is a parliamentary one, there is a single ‘author’ of the law in the form of the governing party with a fixed majority and many ‘editors’ of the law in the form of opposition parties, courts, and civil society actors. If the system is presidential, there are multiple authors and editors and law is generated through a form of deal-making between the different bodies. In thinking about which constitutional system is best for a political community, Pettit concluded, it is vital to have a solid grasp of the analytical issues involved and philosophers would do well to draw on the relevant insights of earlier eras.

Master Class: "Republicanism as a Global and an Economic Ideal"

Watch the video of the lecture

Watch the video and listen to the podcast of the interview with MW Fellows Guy Aitchison (SPS) and Alain Zysset (LAW)


Sir Stephen Wall (Official Historian of Britain and the EU and former UK Permanent Representative to the European Union), “Britain and the European Union: Lessons from a Small Island”,
9 June 2016,
16:00-18:00, MW Common Room

Summary by MW Fellow Emmanuel Comte (HEC 2014-2015 and RSCAS 2015-2016)

Sir Stephen Wall served as British Permanent Representative to the European Union from 1995 to 2000, and then as Director-General in the European Secretariat of the Cabinet Office from 2000 to 2004. In 2007, Prime Minister Gordon Brown appointed him to write the second volume of the Official History of the United Kingdom and the European Community, devoted to the period 1963-1975. Sir Stephen thus succeeded Alan S. Milward, who had published the first volume of this enterprise in 2002 about the period 1945-1963. Dieter Schlenker, director of the Historical Archives of the European Union, introduced the speaker and specified what ‘official history’ means: the author was afforded free access to all relevant material in the official archives of the government. Routledge published this second volume in 2012.

Wall developed his lecture in a chronological order to specify the relationship between Britain and the European Community between the mid-1950s to the early 1990s. In the first place, he emphasised the importance of insularity to explain British foreign relations. A major feature of such relations has been the long-term effort to resist continental encroachment. He referred to the conflict between Henry VIII and the Pope in the first half of the 16th century the Papacy was a foreign power wishing to influence British internal affairs. British imperialism only strengthened this feature of resistance, as the British economy developed ties with overseas regions outside Europe. Australia has long been, for instance, the main British export market.

In the mid-1950s, the British government believed that European Integration would not succeed. By the early 1960s, they were forced, however, to recognise the opposite and asked for membership. President Charles de Gaulle of France’s veto to British membership of the EEC on 14 January 1963 was a serious setback. French and British trade interests conflicted and France anticipated the risk of further enlargements if Britain joined. Trade flows between Britain and the Commonwealth contributed to those conflicting interests. In 1967, France vetoed British membership for the second time, as France’s EEC partners were also worried by the state of the British economy and the risk of having to bail out Britain were it to join.

The third application gave rise to much debate within Britain. A point of contention was the financial contribution of Britain to the EEC budget. During the British absence from the EEC, France had negotiated the Common Agricultural Policy with the aim to help EEC farmers and tax non-EEC agricultural imports. Given that Britain was a country without an important agricultural sector and that it imported most of its agricultural needs from the Commonwealth, British consumers would pay increased taxes on their agricultural products and the British economy would not benefit much from EEC expenditure. Prime Minister Harold Wilson had to threaten his resignation and promise a referendum after accession in order to convince the British people to launch accession negotiations. The U.S. government also pushed Britain to join to constrain the French on foreign policy issues.

Immediately after accession in 1973, the question of the British contribution to the EEC budget meant that the British government asked to renegotiate the terms of accession. The accession treaty was considered to be Britain’s Versailles Treaty. Food prices in Britain increased significantly in the first years of British membership. The British government was not willing to turn away from trade with the Commonwealth. As New Zealand had provided Britain with food during WW2, this was a major issue over the long term. Britain asked for easier access for New Zealand agricultural products to the EEC.

The British contribution was already at the top of the agenda when Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979. British membership would be unsustainable under the terms of accession. As this problem was mitigated with the negotiation of the UK rebate in 1984, European Integration again took a direction adverse to British interests with the negotiation by the early 1990s of the Schengen area and of European monetary integration, both developments arranged under French and German influence.

Sir Stephen Wall closed the lecture by recognising the recurring opposition between Britain and France in the EEC and the difficulty of forming a coalition with Germany to define the European order.

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 Jack Seddon (SPS)


Rogers Brubaker,(University of California, Los Angeles), “Religious Dimensions of Political Conflict and Violence”,
15 June 2016,
Badia Refettorio

How should we understand the religious dimensions of political conflict and political violence? One view sees religiously grounded conflict and violence as sui generis, with a distinctive logic or causal texture. The alternative view subsumes them under political conflict and violence in general, or under the rubric of politicized ethnicity. I seek to highlight both the distinctiveness of religiously informed political conflict and the ways in which many conflicts involving religiously identified claimants are fundamentally similar in structure and dynamics to conflicts involving other culturally or ethnically defined claimants. I identify the distinctively religious stakes of certain political conflicts, informed by distinctively religious understandings of right order. And I specify six violence-enablingmodalities and mechanisms (though all can also enable nonviolent solidaristic or humanitarian social action): (1) the social production of hyper-committed selves; (2) the cognitive and affective construction of extreme otherhood and urgent threat; (3) the mobilization of rewards, sanctions, justifications, and obligations; (4) the experience of profanation; (5) the translocal expandability of conflict; and (6) the incentives generated by decentralized and hyper-competitive religious fields. None of these violence-enabling modalities and mechanisms is uniquely religious; yet religious beliefs, practices, structures, and processes provide an important and distinctively rich matrix of such modalities and mechanisms.

Master Class: “Between Difference and Inequality: Linguistic and Religious Pluralism”

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 Christine Hobden (SPS)

Picture courtesy of ZYNDOK Centar BelgradBadia, MW Common Room, 11-13 February 2016

The main focus of the workshop is how feminist thought under state socialism in East Central Europe can be assessed from an intellectual, historical perspective. This workshop prepares a potential collaborative research project with the aim of showing through a collection of texts and their analysis how feminism as political thought or ideology is shaped and organised in the region in different historical eras, including that of state socialism. These texts can vary from political treatise, philosophy to literary works, even films and the visual arts, with the unavoidable and inherently necessary incorporation of the personal and the private. Women’s political rights, the right to education, women’s role in nation-building, women and war ‒ and especially women and peace ‒ are just as valid themes as the gendered division of labour, violence against women, the body and reproduction.

Organizers: Zsófia Lóránd (HEC), Molly Pucci (HEC), Julija Sardelić (SPS)


Challenging Injustice: The Ethics and Modalities of Political Engagement15 February 2016, 9:30-17:00
Max Weber Common Room

Political agents are subject to, participate in, and witness, severe injustice within their states and across borders. This workshop will explore the ethics and modalities of political engagement directed against injustice. The aim is to look beyond voting, elections and the formal avenues of redress to address oppositional forms of political engagement undertaken by citizens and non-citizen residents. In bringing together the tools and methods of political science, political theory and history, this workshop will explore how different approaches can inform and support one another in their analysis of the same questions and controversies.

Simon Murray Stevens (HEC), Christine Louise Hobden (SPS), Cynthia Salloum (SPS), Guy Aitchison Cornish (SPS).


Interrogating the Idea of Europe: Views from North  Africa. Decolonization, Development, and European Integration24 February 2016, 13:30-17:00
Sala Europa, Villa Schifanoia


This workshop will explore how economic development influenced the twin trajectories of European integration and decolonization in the postwar period. It focuses on North Africa as a prism for understanding the relationship between strategies to create a supranational structure in Europe, on the one hand, and attempts to socially and economically develop North Africa, on the other. Rather than studying colonial development and European reconstruction as separate phenomena, this workshop analyzes how modernization projects fashioned tools of expertise that were applied on both sides of the Mediterranean. At the same time, it interrogates the ways in which European integration informed the policies adopted by the newly independent nation-states in North Africa. By studying Europe and the Maghreb in a single analytical frame, the panel will shed light on the processes of decolonization and European integration as well as their role in shaping the subsequent Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

Organizer: Muriam Haleh Davis (HEC)


Global Leadership in Hard Times3 March 2016, 9:00-18:00

Badia, Emeroteca

It is often remarked that the Great Recession is the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. It is also conventional wisdom that leaders' responses were very different this time around, precisely because policymakers knew the history of the 1930s. Yet, at the same time, the widespread opinion is that global leaders are floundering. How can these conclusions coexist? Have more sustainable solutions to global financial instability been found this time? What really conditioned the responses of central bankers and finance officials then and now? How can we best understand the position and power of leaders facing crises? This conference brings together leading scholars and practitioners to explore the important and contested contours and concepts of global leadership in periods of financial meltdown.

The conference will include two keynote talks: one by Professor Patricia Clavin, titled "Central Bankers' Subjectivities in the Inter-war Period" and one by Dr. David Wright titled "Are the Institutional Structures of the Global Financial Regulatory Bodies Fit For Purpose? What to Do?", complemented by presentations and discussions by researchers at the EUI.

Professor Clavin is Fellow and Tutor in History and Professor of International History at Jesus College Oxford. She is author of Securing the World Economy. The Reinvention of the League of Nations, 1920-1946 (OUP, 2013). She was awarded a British Academy Medal for the book in 2015. David Wright has been working at the coalface of global financial regulation for most of his professional life. Most recently, he has been located in Madrid as the Secretary General of the International Organization of Securities Commissions. Prior to that appointment, he was the Deputy Director-General for Securities and Financial Markets at the European Commission, where he was responsible for European financial markets regulation.

Whether you are a philosopher, lawyer, political scientist, sociologist or economist, we invite you to this workshop, which brings together scholars from a range of disciplines and practitioners to explore these crucial questions.

Organizers: Martina Bozzola (RSCAS), Anastasia Poulou (LAW), Jack Seddon (SPS)


Visualizing Data and Statistical Models17 March 2016, 10:00-18:00, Badia, Emeroteca

Data visualization is one of the most powerful tools for detecting, understanding, and communicating patterns in quantitative data. In addition to the compelling presentation of statistical results, graphs can be used as analytic tools for various purposes and at various stages of the data analysis process.

Visual methods can act as informal precursors to more complex models in the initial model-building process. But they are also useful for evaluating model fit and checking model assumptions, for selecting the best possible model, or as a substitute or complement to statistical models. At the same time, good data visualization is surprisingly difficult and demands three quite different skills: substantive knowledge, statistical skills, and artistic sense.

The workshop is intended to introduce participants to the most important principles, useful methods, and new developments of data visualization in the social sciences.

Organizers: Paul Bauer (SPS), Maria Ines Berniell (ECO), Jonathan Chapman (ECO), Stefanie Reher (SPS)


The Changing Role of Sanctions14 April, 9:15-12:30, Badia, MWP Common Room

National governments and international organisations have come to rely increasingly heavily on economic sanctions as a tool of statecraft during the past three decades.

Indeed, many current international issues, including Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, the war in Syria, and the Iranian nuclear programme, have been addressed in part through the use of economic sanctions, directed at states, non-governmental bodies, and individuals.

This workshop aims to bring together scholars and practitioners working in different fields – from law, political science, economics, and history – to address the role that sanctions have played as states and international organisations develop new strategies to combat current threats and respond to political crises.

Organizers: Sylvanus Afesorgbor (RSCAS), Jed Odermatt (LAW), Simon Stevens (HEC)


Beyond Freedom and Democracy27 April 2016, 15:00-18:00, Badia, Emeroteca

This workshop is the third part of the series “Interrogating the Idea of Europe: Views from North Africa.” It will explore the construction of political narratives regarding Europe on the Southern shore of the Mediterranean. By decentering the dominant perspective, the panel will provide a critical understanding of Europe as a space of cultural diversity and material opportunity. At the same time, it will also interrogate the role of the European Union after the Arab uprisings of 2010-2011, and try to understand the contradictions that characterize its action in favor of democracy and peace-making. Finally, this workshop will shed light on the transnational dynamics and strategies that shape the Euro-Mediterranean relationship, and show how the EU's normative claims have been produced, transferred, contested or reinterpreted with the active participation of the Southern neighborhood.

Organizer: Muriam Haleh Davis (HEC)


Field and Lab Experiments in Climate PolicyTuesday, 10 May 2016, 14:00 -18:45
Badia Fiesolana, Emeroteca

Climate change presents unique challenges to the social sciences. Reaching beyond the bounds of the natural sciences, climate change has profound implications for whole societies that necessitate interdisciplinary inquiry.

This workshop deals with the analysis of various behavioural issues in climate change policy.

In Autumn 2015, two leading figures in the field of climate change economics and policy, Prof. Martin Weitzman and Lord Nicholas Stern delivered public lectures at the EUI. Both stressed the uniqueness and the unprecedented scale of the challenge posed by climate change to humanity. A challenge that calls for enhanced investment in innovative methods for social analysis. The tools and techniques of economics need to be complemented by methods adopted in political science, sociology and psychology to better understand human behaviour and decision-making processes.

Experimental methods have recently attracted a great deal of interest. Expectations for the evidence they may be able to uncover suggest that they may help inform more effective climate policy.

Last December, leaders from around the globe met in Paris for the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. COP21 is a long waited step towards tackling climate change. However, many voices raised the idea that such an agreement will pass into history as mere play to the gallery, because it is full of (nationally determined) good intentions and empty of real binding commitments. What are the prospects for effectively implementing such an agreement?

Organizers: Martina Bozzola (RSCAS), Maria Ines Berniell (ECO), Jordi Teixido (RSCAS), Jack Seddon (SPS)


Data Privacy Advocacy13 May 2016, 14:00-18:00

Privacy advocates – the people and organisations that challenge the development of increasingly intrusive ways in which personal information is collected, processed and disseminated – have been behind many of the recent developments in the field of privacy and data protection regulation in the European Union and beyond.

After almost five years and nearly 4000 amendments, the new General Data Protection Regulation has been approved by the European Parliament. The judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Digital Rights Ireland, Google Spain and Schrems have placed the EU rights to privacy and data protection centre stage. Additionally, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has recently taken a strong stance against unlimited government surveillance, for example in Zakharov v Russia and Szabó and Vissy v Hungary, while several surveillance complaints against the UK are currently pending before that court.

The case law of these two European Courts also has transatlantic implications as the invalidation of the Safe Harbour decision of the European Commission showed. However, in the wake of recent negotiations on new bilateral agreements with the US (the Privacy Shield and the Umbrella Agreement), many are asking whether the fundamental rights claims in Europe remain merely rhetorical. Ultimately, how do all these cases, laws and bilateral agreements relate to one another?

Organizers: Guy Aitchison (SPS), Anna Beckers (LAW), Jed Odermatt (LAW), Bilyana Petkova (LAW)


The Power of Narratives16-17 May 2016
Villa La Fonte, Conference Room

"Stories are wondrous things. They can also be dangerous" said Cherokee-Greek-American writer Thomas King in his renowned Massey Lectures 'The Truth about Stories: A Native Narrative'.

This workshop explores how narratives are constructed, contested, shaped, and reshaped; how some narratives become hegemonic while others are abandoned and eventually forgotten. Narratives can be especially decisive when they contribute to demarcating who belongs to a certain community and who is excluded from it. This workshop looks at case studies in Europe, North America and the Middle East and focuses on how new narratives of belonging transform and define the boundaries between those included and excluded. It explores to which extent new narratives are being used to reinforce old exclusions and whether new narratives are creating cleavages in societies that hitherto did not experience them.

New discourses appealing to gender equality and the rights of sexual minorities, as well as to the overall discourse on human rights, are increasingly being used, or rather misused, to label and stigmatize certain marginalized minorities and migrants, such as those belonging to Muslim and Roma minorities. Concepts such as nativism and autochthony are increasingly being used to explain transformations in the contours of belonging in Europe and beyond.

The workshop starts with a critical analysis of how new xenophobic discourses addressing particularly Muslims, but also other migrants whether from within or outside the European Union. It continues with a focus on narratives mobilised to make sense of the refugee crisis in the former Yugoslav countries and in the Middle East. It concludes with a focus on the counter-hegemonic narratives of minority actors themselves and how they try to construct different narratives to make sense of the migration phenomenon.

The workshop includes papers on changing narratives of 'belonging' and how they re-define outsiders and recreate the community of 'We'.

Organizers: Aitana Guia (RSCAS) and Julija Sardelic (SPS)


Nordic Countries Constitutional Tradition in the 21st Century16-17 May 2016
Badia, MW Common Room

An established wisdom in the field of comparative constitutional law is that Nordic constitutionalism has always been exceptional. According to this truism, this family of countries – consisting by most accounts of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden – has traditionally exhibited different properties than the other Western traditions of constitutional law.

In a nutshell, constitutional law and courts have been less central to the public life in these countries and the constitutional "language" was understood as more akin to a professional language than as part of the political discourse. Yet, recent developments both in the legal realm (such as the rise of influence of the CJEU and the ECtHR) and outside of it (the growing number of immigrants and refugees) are presenting new challenges to Nordic countries' place as an exceptional constitutional law tradition.

The conference aims to examine whether in reacting to these developments, Nordic constitutionalism has lost its exceptional character. If Nordic countries still maintain a unique tradition of constitutional law, the conference will aim to examine whether other countries facing similar challenges can learn from the Nordic exceptional tradition.

Organizers: Or Bassok (LAW), Ida Ilmatar Koivisto (LAW)


The Rise of International Courts17 May 2016, 8:45-18:00
Badia, Theatre

This multidisciplinary workshop examines the rise of international courts and tribunals (ICs) and the underlying international legal system from a normative and sociological standpoint. The workshop centers around the question of what makes, if anything, the ICs and the international legal system legitimate. Normative and sociological theory scholars offer different responses to this question, but hardly discuss it together. However, a number of normative theorists interested in the legitimacy of ICs tend to assume that not all ICs can be assessed with the same overarching normative theory. The assumption alone, in the vein of the "turn to practice" in political theory , depends on both legal and sociological considerations. Therefore, normative theorists cannot roll over contextualization and may in fact benefit from sociological approaches for their own prescriptive endeavors.

Conversely, sociological approaches to international law shed light on the specific and embedded rationalities at play in the work and around the ICs. As such, they are reluctant to idealizing their analysis of the ICs in the vein of political theory. However, pointing to internalized norms and various forms of conflict, power and domination in and around ICs itself presupposes a normative framework in virtue of which those patterns can be identified. Yet sociologists often resist making their normative framework explicit, whereas normative theorists make it their top priority. The workshop therefore aims at exploring how both disciplinary perspectives can mutually inform each other in assessing the same and rapidly evolving object of study. It welcomes both abstract and more applied papers on the role of ICs and the nature and structure of the international legal system.

Organizers: Guy Aitchison (MWF, SPS), Sabine Mair (Researcher, Law), Bilyana Petkova (MWF, Law), Alain Zysset (MWF, Law)


Transformation of Europe, 25 years after18 May 2016, 11:00-13:00
Badia, Theatre

In 1991, Joseph Weiler, then a Professor at Michigan Law School, published an article in Yale Law Journal titled "The Transformation of Europe." This Article became one of the cornerstones for discussions on the EU.

In 2011, twenty years after the article was published, several prominent scholars have gathered to assess the article's insights in view of the changes that have occurred since its publication. Their contributions are forthcoming in a book edited by Marlene Wind and Miguel Maduro.

Twenty five years after the publication of the Article, the conversation between Wind and Weiler will focus on two main themes. First, we will discuss the Article's main contributions to current debates as well as examine which insights that it offered stood the test of time and which did not.

Second, political scientists offered a somewhat different perspective on the transformation of Europe and through examining Wind's extensive work on the EU we will attempt to shed a different light on current debates.

Both speakers will also offer their insights as to what makes a scholarly contribution stand the test of time. The conversation will be moderated by Bruno de Witte and will be followed by a Q & A from the audience.

Oganizer: Or Bassok (LAW)


Alf Ross and Scandinavian Legal Realism18 May 2016, 14:00-16:00
Villa Schifanoia, Sala Triaria

Contrary to their American "cousins," Scandinavian legal realism has been relatively forgotten. Alf Ross's work – one of the leaders of this movement – is almost completely ignored.

In a typical class on jurisprudence, Ross's work is rarely discussed while American legal realism is usually very much at the center of discussion. Yet, in recent years, a renewed interst in his work has risen. In view of this interest, a new translation of Ross's most famous book On Law and Justice is forthcoming as part of Oxford University Press Series of legal classics.

Professor Jakob v. H. Holtermann, who wrote the analytical introduction to this new translation, will offer a workshop on Ross and Scandinavian legal realism and its relationship to American legal realism. Holtermann will also discuss his forthcoming article Getting Real or Staying Positive: Legal Realism(s), Legal Positivism and the Prospects of Naturalism in Jurisprudence.

Organnizers: Or Bassok (MWF Law), Marcin Baranski (LAW Researcher)


Introduction to Text Analysis19 May 2016, 10:00-18:00
Badia, Seminar Room 4

The popularity of text as data is increasing rapidly within the social sciences. "Scholars have long recognized this, but the massive costs of analyzing even moderately sized collections of texts have hindered their use in political science research" (Grimmer and Stewart 2013) and elsewhere in the social sciences. This situation has changed with increasing computing power and more capable computing tools. In the coming years, the relevance of text data will further increase as more and more human communication is recorded online.

This workshop provides an introduction to text analysis using R. We will cover methods to conduct quantitative analysis of textual and web data, with an emphasis on social media data, applied to the study of social science questions. The workshop is made up of three "modules", each consisting of an introduction to a topic followed by examples and applications using R. The first module will cover how to format and input source texts, how to prepare the data for analysis, and how to extract descriptive statistics. The second module will discuss automated classification of text sources into categories using dictionary methods and supervised learning. Finally, the third module will discuss unsupervised classification of text into categories using topic modeling.

This workshop will be led by Pablo Barberá. He is currently a Moore-Sloan Fellow at New York University and will join the University of Southern California as Assistant Professor in July. His primary research interests include social media and politics, quantitative political methodology, electoral behavior, and political representation. Pablo Barberá is the author of several R packages to collect and analyze social media data using R, regularly analyzes text for his research, and has taught a number of courses in this area.

Organizers: Paul Bauer (SPS), Maria Ines Berniell (ECO), Jonathan Chapman (ECO), Stefanie Reher (SPS)


The Political Economy of Regulation20 May 2016, 9:00-18:00
Badia, MW Common Room

The global financial crisis has called into question the suitability of pre-crisis modes of financial regulation and raised broader concerns over the political considerations underlying government support for the financial system. The near collapse of a number of prominent international financial institutions, the economic downturn that followed, and the use of public funds to bail out bankrupt banks has prompted widespread demands for 'better' market regulation. New regimes of regulation for financial markets have been developed that seek to tackle systemic risk, to constrain financial excesses, and to ensure stability and ongoing profitability in global financial markets.

Yet the regulation of markets and of the economy more broadly is much more diverse, much more subtle, and much more complex than popular debate over post-crisis reform might suggest. In this workshop, we will examine some ideas and practices of market regulation, both historical and contemporary, from a number of different disciplinary perspectives. Regulation is considered in the broadest possible sense, encompassing an array of different forms of government activity including economic and monetary policy, institutional structures, the use of self-regulation in banks and hedge funds, and the design of legal regimes, national, international and transnational.

Organizers: Jonathan Chapman (SPS), Silvia Calò (RSCAS)


New Frontiers of Collaboration?25 May 2016, 15:00-18:00
MW Common Room

How can we develop innovative and robust methodological frameworks in order to understand complex social phenomena? Recent developments in the field of computational social science (CSS) approaches substantially enlarge the existing methodological techniques for the establishment of causality and, consequently, for the better understanding of our social world. CSS approaches can help vastly expand the span of our research inquiries. There is a growing need to analyse the increasing number of digitally available text collections.

This workshop's aim is to bring together CSS experts and social scientists to improve the dialog between the two communities. Social scientists have questioned the applicability of CSS methods to explain social phenomena. It is important to make clear that CSS approaches do not comprise alternative methodologies. Rather they are complementary with the ones currently used in social science research. They aid researchers in the social science fields to improve and reinforce their methodological arsenal. This workshop's ambition is to inform social scientists about the new opportunities offered by CSS techniques, and CSS experts of the needs and challenges of social scientists. This dialog can help the formation of robust methodological frameworks and the improvement of theoretical building.

Organizers: Guillemette Crouzet (HEC), Ioannis Galariotis (SPS), Olivia Nicol (SPS)


Designing Legitimacy in International Organisations7 June 2016, 9:00-18:00
Badia, MW Common Room

This workshop aims to bring into conversation political science and legal perspectives on the design of legitimacy in international organizations.

Our point of departure is the observation that the literatures on the (rational) design of international institutions and on institutional legitimacy have much to offer each other but rarely interact directly. While the rational institutionalist research program has much to say about institutional design, it implicitly reduces legitimacy to institutional effectiveness and so forgoes interesting avenues of research opened up by the institutional legitimacy literature.

Scholarship on legitimacy, in contrast, questions the relative importance of output (institutional effectiveness) vs. input or procedural fairness as sources of legitimacy. However, the institutional legitimacy literature is ambivalent about how legitimacy can best be designed and whether, empirically, legitimacy is primarily a matter of input, throughput, or output factors.

Against this background, the workshop aims to explore, from different disciplinary perspectives, how insights from (rational) institutional design and institutional legitimacy can be combined to enhance our understanding of international organizations.

Organizers: Gisela Hirschmann (SPS), Ida Koivisto (LAW), Tobias Lenz (RSCAS), Lora Viola (Jean Monnet fellow, EUI)


Foreigners, Frontiers and Legal Frameworks21 June, 9:00-17:30
Badia, MW Common Room

This multidisciplinary workshop project seeks to contribute to ongoing debates about frontiers, migration, and legal frameworks by bringing together expertise and research interests from across the Max Weber Programme and beyond. Given the current relevance of this theme, we aim to draw on historical, legal and social science approaches in order to stimulate a conversation across academic disciplines, which have often tended to consider these questions in isolation.

Organizers: Adele Carrai (LAW), Simon MacDonald (HEC), Cynthia Salloum (SPS), Peter Daniel Szigeti (LAW), Cecilia Tarruell (HEC)


9th JMU-MWP Symposium18 April 2016, 9:30-17:15
Badia, MW Common Room

Keynote lecture by US Ambassador to the EU Tony Gardner

"US-EU Partnership; holding firm in a turbulent world"
chaired by Prof. Joseph Weiler President EUI

Badia, Refettorio


US-EU Partnership; holding firm in a turbulent world. Terrorism, Ukraine, Migration, Syria, Brexit. The European Union is facing a multitude of simultaneous challenges that have caused many to question some of the fundamental principles of the Union. In this context, the U.S.-EU relationship is even more important. Ambassador Gardner will discuss the United States and European Union’s role as essential partners in a turbulent world.

Programme (PDF)


Max Weber Programme 2006-2016: 10th anniversary MW Fellows June ConferenceThe conference offers an interdisciplinary perspective on economic, historical, legal, political and social debates in research and academia, with an emphasis on inequalities and exclusion around gender, sexuality, ethnicity, citizenship, race and religion. It is a forum that fosters inter-cohort academic collaboration and cross-institutional exchange.

8-10 June 2016
Badia Fiesolana, San Domenico di Fiesole


Download the detailed programme (pdf)

See pictures on Flickr

Watch the keynote lecture by Sir Stephen Wall

Watch the keynote lecture by Professor Iván Szelenyi



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.

  • Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor (RSCAS 2015-2016) (with Renuka Mahadevan), ‘The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Income Inequality of Target States’, World Development, Volume 83, July 2016, pages 1–11.
  • When States Come Out: Europe's Sexual Minorities and the Politics of VisibilityPhillip Ayub (SPS 2013-2014), When States Come Out: Europe's Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility, CUP, 2016.
  • Précis de droit international public: théorie, sources, interlégalité, sujetsStéphane BEAULAC (LAW 2006-2007), Précis de droit international public: théorie, sources, interlégalité, sujets, 2nd ed. (Montreal: LexisNexis, 2015), 453 p.
  • Droit à l'indépendance Québec, Monténégro, Kosovo, Écosse, CatalogneStéphane BEAULAC (LAW 2006-2007), (with Frédéric BÉRARD), Droit à l'indépendance Québec, Monténégro, Kosovo, Écosse, Catalogne (Montreal: Éditions YXZ, 2015), 271 p.
  • Textes constitutionnels et documents (nationaux, internationaux) relatifs aux droits humainsStéphane BEAULAC (LAW 2006-2007), Textes constitutionnels et documents (nationaux, internationaux) relatifs aux droits humains (Montreal: Éditions JFD, 2015), 303 p.
  • Gregorio Bettiza (SPS 202-2014), Religion and International Relations, Oxford Bibliographies, 2016.
  • Ordinary Workers: French Railwaymen, Vichy and the HolocaustLudivine Broch (HEC 2013-2014) Ordinary Workers: French Railwaymen, Vichy and the Holocaust (in press with Cambridge University Press, June 2016).
  • Occupation, Politics, Empire and EntanglementsLudivine Broch (HEC 2013-2014) (with Alison Carrol, eds.), France in an Era of Global War, 1914-45: Occupation, Politics, Empire and Entanglements (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).
  • Ludivine Broch (HEC 2013-2014) ‘Professionalism in the Final Solution: French Railway Workers and the Jewish Deportations 1942-1944,’ Contemporary European History 23.3 (2014) 359-81.
  • Ludivine Broch (HEC 2013-2014) ‘Rescue, Railways and the Righteous: French Railway Workers and the Question of Rescue in the Holocaust’, Diasporas, 25 (Sept. 2015) 147-67.
  • Mathias Delori (SPS 2008-2009), La réconciliation franco-allemande pour la jeunesse: la généalogie, l’événement, l’histoire (1871-2015), Peter Lang, 2016.
  • Elaine Fahey (LAW 2009-2010), The Global Reach of EU Law, Ashgate, Fall 2016.
  • Interparliamentary Cooperation in the Composite European ConstitutionCristina Fasone (LAW 2013-2015) and Nicola Lupo (eds.), Interparliamentary Cooperation in the Composite European Constitution, Hart Publishing, 2016.
  • Gianluigi Fioriglio (SPS 2009-2011), ‘Freedom, Authority and knowledge on line: the dictatorship of the algorithm’, in Revista Internacional de Pensamiento Político, 2015, 10,
  • The Black Prince of Florence: The Spectacular Life and Treacherous World of Alessandro de' MediciCatherine Fletcher (HEC 2010-2011), The Black Prince of Florence: The Spectacular Life and Treacherous World of Alessandro de' Medici, Penguin, 2016.
  • Jörg Friedrichs (SPS 2006-2007), An intercultural theory of international relations: how self-worth underlies politics among nations, International Theory / Volume 8 / Issue 01 / March 2016, pp 63-96.
  • Joannis Galariotis (SPS 2015-2016) (with Spyros Blavoukos, Dimitris Bourantonis ) ‘The European Union's visibility and coherence at the United Nations General Assembly’, Global Affairs, Volume 2, Issue 1, 2016, pages 35-45.
  • Rasmus Hoffmann (SPS 2008-2009) (with Hu Y, de Gelder R, Menvielle G, Bopp M, Mackenbach JP) ‘The impact of increasing income inequalities on educational inequalities in mortality: an analysis of six European countries’, International Journal for Equity in Health, forthcoming.
  • Politicising Europe: Integration and Mass Politics.Swen Hutter (SPS 2012-2013) (with Edgar Grande and Hanspeter Kriesi (eds.)). 2016. Politicising Europe: Integration and Mass Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Zoe Lefkofridi (SPS 2013-2015), (with Philippe Schmitter), ‘Neofunctionalism as a theory of disintegration’. Open access here:
  • Katharina Lenner (RSCAS 2015-2016) 'The politics of pledging: reflections on the London donors conference for Syria', Policy Brief, 2016/03, Florence: Migration Policy Centre, European University Institute, Web:
  • Quinton Mayne (SPS 2009-2010) (with Armen Hakhverdian), ‘Ideological Congruence and Citizen Satisfaction. Evidence from 25 Advanced Democracies’, Comparative Political Studies April 6, 2016 0010414016639708.
  • Giuseppe Martinico (LAW 2010-2011) (with G.I Gordillo), Historias del País de las Hadas. La jurisprudencia constitucionalizadora del Tribunal de Justicia, Civitas, Thomson-Reuters, 2015.
  • Giuseppe Martinico (LAW 2010-2011) ‘The “Polemical” Spirit of European Constitutional Law: On the Importance of Conflicts in EU Law’, German Law Journal, 2015, 1343-1374.
  • Giuseppe Martinico (LAW 2010-2011) ‘Interjudicial dialogue and interparliamentary dialogue, in the Constitution of the Union’, in N. Lupo- C. Fasone (eds) Interparliamentary cooperation in the composite European Constitution, Hart Publishing, 2016, 39-53.
  • Giuseppe Martinico (LAW 2010-2011) ‘National Courts and Judicial Disobedience to the ECHR. A Comparative Overview’, in O.M. Arnardóttir-A.Buyse, Shifting Centres of Gravity in Human Rights Protection: Rethinking Relations between the ECHR, EU, and National Legal Orders, Routledge, Abingdon, 2016, 59-78.
  • Moti Michaeli (ECO 2014-2016), ‘From Peer Pressure to Biased Norms’ (with Daniel Spiro). Forthcoming in American Economic Journal: Microeconomics.
  • Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European CourtsSofia Moratti (LAW 2011-2013) (with Dennis Patterson) eds, Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts, Hart Publishing forthcoming (6 October 2016).
  • Brendon Restepo (ECO 2012-2014), ‘Parental Investment Responses to a Low Birth Weight Outcome: Who Compensates and Who Reinforces?’ Journal of Population Economics, forthcoming.
  • Jordi Teixidó (RSCAS 2015-2017) (with Steinberger J., Haberl H., Krausmann F., Peters G., Wiedmann T., Duro J. Kastner T). ‘International inequality of environmental pressures: decomposition and comparative analysis’. (2016) Ecological Indicators 62, 163-173.
  • Jordi Teixidó (RSCAS 2015-2017) (with Giménez, J., Vilella, C.) ‘The global carbon budget: a conflicting claims problem’. Climatic Change, forthcoming.
  • Jordi Teixidó (RSCAS 2015-2017) (with Duro, J., Padilla E.) ‘The causal components of international CO2 emissions inequality: a regression based decomposition analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, forthcoming.
  • The Transformation of Enforcement, European Economic Law in a Global PerspectiveAndrea Wechsler (LAW 2011-2013) (with Hans-W. Micklitz (ed.), The Transformation of Enforcement, European Economic Law in a Global Perspective, (Hart Publishing), 2016.
  • Wirtschaftsprivatrecht: Kompaktwisen für Betriebswirte (De Gruyter Studium)Andrea Wechsler (LAW 2011-2013) et al., Wirtschaftsprivatrecht: Kompaktwisen für Betriebswirte (De Gruyter Studium), Taschenbuch, 2016.
  • Can AybekCan Aybek (SPS 2008-2009), was appointed Professor of Empirical Social Research at the Faculty for Social Sciences of the Applied University of Bremen (Hochschule Bremen), Germany; he will also be the DAAD Visiting Professor for German and European Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto for the academic year 2016-2017.
  • Jörg BalsigerJörg Balsiger (SPS 2007-2008), in September 2017 will start a position as Associate Professor of Sustainable Development at the Department of Geography and Environment of the University of Geneva.
  • Mariano BarbatoMariano Barbato (SPS 2007-2008) moved to the Center of Religion and Modernity, University of Münster.
  • Elaine FaheyElaine Fahey (LAW 2009-2010) was promoted to Associate Dean at City Law School, City University London . She is an Emile Noel Fellow at the Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law and Justice, NYU Law School in 2017 for her forthcoming sabbatical.
  • Aitana GuiaAitana Guia (RSCAS 2015-2016), in August 2016 will move to California State University Fullerton as a tenure-track assistant professor in Modern European History
  • Masanori KashiwagiMasanori Kashiwagi (ECO 2010-2011) moved to the Faculty of International Social Sciences, Gakushuin University (Tokyo) as an Associate Professor.
  • Migle LaukyteMigle Laukyte (LAW 2012-2014), has become CONEX - Marie Curie Fellow (Professor) at the Departamento del Derecho Privado of Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Spain).
  • Moti MichaeliMoti Michaeli (ECO 2014-2016) as of 1 September 2016 will be an Assistant Professor at the Economics Department of the University of Haifa.
  • Belén Olmos GiupponiBelén Olmos Giupponi (LAW 2007-2009), as of September 2016 will be a Senior Lecturer in International Law and EU Law at Liverpool Hope University (UK).
  • Ignacio de la Rasilla del MoralIgnacio de la Rasilla del Moral (LAW 2011-2012), has been promoted Senior Lecturer at Brunell University London
  • Brandon RestepoBrandon Restepo (ECO 2013-2015) is joining the United States Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service in July 2016.
  • Julija SardelicJulija Sardelic (SPS 2014-2016), started in February 2016 as a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the School of Law and Social Justice in Liverpool
  • Jörg BalsigerJörg Balsiger (SPS 2007-2008), received a four-year Swiss National Science Foundation Professorial Fellowship in September 2015.
  • Mariano BarbatoMariano Barbato (SPS 2007-2008), received a Heisenberg Fellowship and a Research Grant from the German Research Foundation for ‘Legions of the Pope. A Case Study in Social and Political Transformation.’
  • Elaine FaheyElaine Fahey (LAW 2009-2010), was awarded a 12 month British Academy/ Leverhulme Research Grant in 2016.
  • Damien GerardDamien Gerard (LAW 2014-2015), on 14 April 2016, was awarded the 2015 thesis prize of the European Law Faculties Association (ELFA) for his doctoral research titled ‘Managing diversity in the European Union: cooperation, convergence and mutual trust’
  • Sven HutterSven Hutter (SPS 2012-2013), won the Best Paper Prize of the Journal of Common Market Studies (with Edgar Grande) for ‘Politicizing Europe in the National Electoral Arena: A Comparative Analysis of Five West European Countries, 1970–2010’, JCMS 52(4) 1002-1018.
  • Robert LepeniesRobert Lepenies (SPS 2013-2015) was elected to the Global Young Academy in 2016:
  • Giuseppe MartinicoGiuseppe Martinico (LAW 2010-2011), was appointed honorary professor at the European law Research Centre of the University of Henan, China (2015-2018).
  • Guido van MeersbergenGuido van Meersbergen (HEC 2015-2016), was awarded a Leverhulme Trust Early Career Grant for his project titled ‘Cross-Cultural Diplomacy Compared: European Diplomats in South Asia (1600-1750)’.
  • Elliott Huxley Broch-HinksElliott Huxley Broch-Hinks – son of Ludivine Broch (HEC 2013-2014) – born 25 July 2015.
  • Peter Grigore TarleaPeter Grigore Tarlea – son of Silvana (SPS 2014-2016) and Filip Tarlea - born 29 April 2016.
  • Ignacio de la Rasilla del MoralIgnacio de la Rasilla del Moral (LAW 2011-2012) married Yayezi Hao in Spain on 9 April 2016.

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