Suchergebnisse

This article analyses the European Commission's attitude vis-à-vis labour migration and brain drain in the Western Balkans. It uses Croatia's post–EU accession experience as a focal point. Grappling with elevated migration rates and a decline in natality, the Western Balkan countries are an interesting region in terms of demographic change. Examining how much attention the Commission pays to brain drain, the article notes an increase since 2019; yet this focus appears disproportionately limited considering the potential repercussions for economic growth and social welfare in the countries experiencing it. The Commission's predominantly negative view of brain drain emphasises that it is the nations affected that are responsible for avoiding it, thereby confirming that it is caused by a skills mismatch. The article recommends integrating brain-drain prevention measures into the enlargement process, and encourages the Commission to improve its focus on the matter in its annual candidate and potential candidate country progress reports.

Malgré les nouveaux défis tels que le changement climatique et la numérisation, les organisations mondiales et régionales ont récemment traversé des périodes de turbulence en raison du manque d'adhésion de plusieurs de leurs États membres. À côté de cette crise du multilatéralisme, la pandémie de COVID-19 semble désormais remettre en cause la valeur ajoutée des organisations internationales en ce qui concerne plus spécifiquement les questions de gouvernance mondiale. Dans le présent article, nous analysons ce double défi auquel plusieurs organisations sont confrontées et comparons leurs manières de gérer la crise en examinant leur contexte institutionnel et politique, leur structure de gouvernance et leur comportement pendant la pandémie jusqu'en juin 2020. Plus précisément, nous allons tenter d'expliquer les réponses différentes et fragmentées de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé, de l'Union européenne et du Fonds monétaire international/Banque mondiale. Afin de comprendre les problèmes anciens et nouveaux que ces organisations internationales tentent de résoudre, nous soutenons ici que le niveau d'autonomie vis-à-vis des États membres est déterminant pour comprendre la politique de gestion des crises. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens En tant qu'organismes intergouvernementaux, les organisations internationales ont besoin de l'accord de leurs États membres. Étant donné qu'elles ont aussi besoin de fonds pour assurer leur fonctionnement, différents degrés d'autonomie sont également importants pour réagir aux défis qui apparaissent, tels que la pandémie de COVID-19. Le potentiel des organisations internationales est limité, mais grâce à des initiatives proactives et audacieuses, elles peuvent profiter de la crise pour surmonter en partie les contraintes institutionnelles et politiques.

Comme de nombreux pays d'Europe occidentale, la Belgique et les Pays-Bas ont été fortement touchés par le COVID-19. Le virus s'y est propagé presque simultanément, a provoqué un nombre relativement élevé d'infections et des mesures de confinement strictes ont été imposées ; cependant, dans le même temps, la réponse de la gestion de crise a été suffisamment différente pour justifier une analyse comparative systématique. Nous partons du principe que les décisions prises sur la base d'informations incomplètes montrent la véritable nature de la réponse des gouvernements à une crise, qui est conditionnée par les héritages du passé et les cultures organisationnelles, les structures de gouvernance existantes et nouvelles, et les stratégies utilisées par des acteurs spécifiques. Nous montrons que la différence dans la gestion de la crise fait écho aux différents types de consociativisme des pays, mais aussi que le fédéralisme belge et la décentralisation néerlandaise ont empêché une réponse véritablement cohérente. Le coût de la coordination des différents niveaux de gouvernement a également rendu difficile une approche uniforme. Les stratégies des acteurs pour tenter de tirer parti de la crise semblent avoir le moins influencé la réponse, mais ont eu un impact sur les perceptions de la réponse. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Notre article explique comment les gouvernements de la région des « Pays-Bas » (Belgique et Pays-Bas) ont répondu au défi du COVID-19 au cours du premier semestre 2020. Il permet aux praticiens de mieux comprendre que dans des circonstances de crise imminente, les différentes structures de gouvernance ont leur importance. Il révèle également que le coût de la coordination entre le niveau fédéré et le niveau fédéral s'est avéré assez élevé en Belgique. Aux Pays-Bas, une grande autonomie a été laissée aux autorités fédérées et locales, ce qui a aussi empêché une approche plus cohérente. Si le COVID-19 offre sans aucun doute aux décideurs politiques des possibilités de tirer parti de la crise, ceux-ci ne saisissent pas toujours les opportunités. 2

Despite new challenges like climate change and digitalization, global and regional organizations recently went through turbulent times due to a lack of support from several of their member states. Next to this crisis of multilateralism, the COVID-19 pandemic now seems to question the added value of international organizations for addressing global governance issues more specifically. This article analyses this double challenge that several organizations are facing and compares their ways of managing the crisis by looking at their institutional and political context, their governance structure, and their behaviour during the pandemic until June 2020. More specifically, it will explain the different and fragmented responses of the World Health Organization, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund/World Bank. With the aim of understanding the old and new problems that these international organizations are trying to solve, this article argues that the level of autonomy vis-a-vis the member states is crucial for understanding the politics of crisis management. Points for practitioners As intergovernmental bodies, international organizations require authorization by their member states. Since they also need funding for their operations, different degrees of autonomy also matter for reacting to emerging challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential for international organizations is limited, though through proactive and bold initiatives, they can seize the opportunity of the crisis and partly overcome institutional and political constraints.

In the debate around the possible development of a European public sphere, three different approaches can be distinguished. The 'sceptical' approach argues that a European public sphere is neither feasible nor desirable in the absence of a strongly developed collective identity at the European level. The 'functionalist' approach believes in the development of a decentralised European public sphere consisting of a series of 'issue publics' complementing and supporting the current European governance structures. We argue, however, in favour of a third, 'political' approach which advocates the further politicisation of European policy-making as a prerequisite for the formation of a sufficiently integrated, transnational European public sphere. Further politicisation would not only increase the quality of European decision-making, it would also, for the first time, allow European citizens to identify the European Union as a political project in which they can collectively shape their common future.

This special issue of Res Publica may already dedicated to the Belgian Presidency of 2010, the Union has meanwhile - Belgium possible exception - not stood still. The machinery of the EU continue to run, new presidents have tried to Council in the right direction and as always come and go policy topics. The Belgians are no longer at the helm, they have the name tag of 'Chairman' exchanged for that of 'Belgium'. But to do what? Current Affairs or, Belgium is obliged to take all sorts of positions in the Council of Ministers. This is done without much attention from the outside world, but it happens. Adapted from the source document.

In Flanders, every political party has its own political foundation or study centre. Although their importance for the party organisation is widely recognised, a systematic and comparative analysis of these study centres is still lacking. This article is the first attempt to address this empirical void. Based on document analysis, interviews and survey material, we analyse the basic characteristics of the study centres of seven Flemish parties, covering all major political families. We compare their size, internal structure and autonomy vis-a-vis the party, explore the advisors' profile and background and discuss the generation and products of advice. We conclude that despite their heterogeneity Flemish study centres share a common but limited functionality, being more of an extension of political parties than classical think tanks. Adapted from the source document.

The selection of leading candidates by the political families, the so-called Spitzenkandidaten, is relatively groundbreaking as it is the first form of political recruitment organized at the EU level. The literature on candidate selection procedures has so far concentrated on national parties and their procedures. To our knowledge the analytical model has not yet been applied at the EU level. This article will fill this gap by examining the selection procedures of Europarties, more particularly for their EC presidency candidates, a novelty of the 2014 European Parliament elections. Based on the analysis of the procedures applied within the European People's Party (EPP), the Party of European Socialists (PES), the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (ALDE), the European Green Party (EGP), and the Party of the European Left (EL), one of the main findings of this article is that the procedures are largely copy-paste from the Europarties' internal procedures for selecting a president. This can largely be explained by the lack of time and experience their party elites had in the run-up to the 2014 elections. We therefore expect the Europarties to further professionalize their selection procedures and start the process earlier with more high profile politicians to stand as candidates in 2019.