{"id":60195,"date":"2024-02-07T09:23:47","date_gmt":"2024-02-07T08:23:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wns.uwr.edu.pl\/?page_id=60195"},"modified":"2025-09-12T14:38:09","modified_gmt":"2025-09-12T12:38:09","slug":"research-projects","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/wns.uwr.edu.pl\/en\/faculty\/jean-monnet-chair\/research-projects\/","title":{"rendered":"Research projects"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Research projects<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"Jean<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Comparative Perspectives on Oppostion to Autocratisation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Principal investigator: Sonja Priebus (Viadrina)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Partner: Aleksandra Maatsch<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duration: 6 months (2025)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funded by: German-Polish Science Foundation (Deutsch-Polnische Wissenschaftsstiftung), 200-2025-00929<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Budget: 6 655 EUR<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The Domestic Politics of EU Action against Democratic Backsliding, (DEUDEM)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Principal investigator NCN: Aleksandra Maatsch<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Principal investigator DFG: Arndt Wonka<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Principal investigator FWF: Michael Blauberger<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duration: 36 months, project start May 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funded by: Weave framework (NCN, FWF, DFG), budget 889 648 EUR<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Webpage: https:\/\/sites.google.com\/view\/deudem<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After years of hesitation, the European Union (EU) has finally recognized democratic backsliding as one of its biggest challenges and has become more assertive. Research on (countering) democratic backsliding is growing quickly, but mostly focused on either domestic causes of backsliding or EU-level accounts of counter-measures. What is systematically neglected is the link between both levels: the domestic politics before and after the EU takes action. The domestic politics of EU action against democratic backsliding, as understood in this project, consist of domestic party positions and arguments on EU action and their effects on citizens\u2019 attitudes. Our basic assumption is that the EU\u2019s ability to act and to have an impact against member state backsliding crucially depends on domestic political support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consequently, our project addresses the following research questions: Which political parties support and oppose EU action against backsliding and why (step 1)? Which effects do these party-political arguments have on citizens\u2019 attitudes regarding EU action against backsliding (step 2)? To analyze political parties\u2019 relative support for and opposition to EU actions as well as the arguments they rely upon to substantiate their positions, we will rely on texts such as protocols of parliamentary debates. These texts will be analyzed relying on automated text analysis as well as manual coding strategies. The effects of parties\u2019 cues and frames on citizens\u2019 evaluation of EU actions against backsliding will be identified with survey experiments. Finally, to learn more about political actors\u2019 motives and strategic choices, we will rely on interviews with personnel of political parties that the project identifies as having played a key role in the domestic politics of EU actions against backsliding.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apart from its novel focus on the link between EU action and domestic politics, this projects also goes beyond existing research regarding its empirical scope. Our country selection comprises Austria, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, and Slovakia. The project thus covers not only the \u201cusual suspects\u201d of backsliding EU member states, but also domestic politics in EU member states that are democratically stable (\u201cnon-backsliding states\u201d), threatened by democratic backsliding (\u201cpotential backsliding states\u201d), and seeking to re-establish democratic principles (\u201cpotential recovering states\u201d). The project\u2019s results will be of academic and societal relevance, as they will improve our understanding of how the EU can contribute to countering autocratic developments in EU member states and thereby facilitate democratic stability in Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Party Rebranding: Electoral and Intra-Party Consequences<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Principal investigator: Anna Pacze\u015bniak<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duration: 12 months, project start January 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funded by: IDUB Programme of the University of Wroclaw, budget: 10 000 PLN, grant number BPIDUB.44.2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Democratic Legitimacy in the Post-Crisis Economic Governance, (CONCILIA)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Principal investigator: dr Tomasz Wo\u017aniakowski<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duration: 36 months, 2022-2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funded by: NCN SONATA 17, budget 687106 PLN<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the past decade, the European Union (EU) has acquired a good deal of power in the fiscalpolicies of its member states. This result of the Euro crisis is exemplified by a frameworkfor fiscal policy surveillance, where governments and parliaments seem to surrendercrucial aspects of governance and scrutiny to European control. They thus give away keypolicy leverage. Why? And how these new mechanisms affects parliamentary scrutiny powersover budget? This topic is also important in terms of democratic accountability and could thuscontribute to the debate on democracy in Europe. By analysing the parliamentary scrutinyof the EU\u2019s economic governance, I would help to solve this puzzle and fill an importantgap in the literature. CONCILIA will be the first project showing the comparative politicaldiscourse on fiscal policy embedded in the European institutional framework.How can the executives be scrutinized by national parliaments (NPs) in the area ofeconomic governance? In order to answer this research question, the relevant debates andhearings in the NPs would be explored, which would allow for the discovery of patterns ofscrutiny and political conflict. Thus, the main goal of CONCILIA would be to investigateand explain mechanisms of scrutiny and political conflict in European economicgovernance. This study would be conducted on a representative set of parliaments. The maingoal of CONCILIA would be accompanied by more specific objectives. Drawing from myprevious work on the Europeanisation of economic and political domestic systems is todemonstrate the patterns of the NPs\u2019 involvement in the EU\u2019s economic governance. Howexactly have the NPs become \u2018Europeanised\u2019 in the framework of their economicpolicymaking? I would answer this question by in-depth case studies and an interdisciplinaryapproach of Process Tracing, combining methods of political science and history, which couldbe interesting for a wider audience of scholars doing qualitative case studies. Moreover, byconducting interviews with Members of Parliament (MPs) and other policymakers, Iwould be able to also show informal ways of scrutiny. By presenting the project results infive academic conferences and publishing five peer-reviewed articles, including one jointpaper, I will ensure the impact of the project on my specific research field, but also on a widerdiscipline of political science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

E-governance and Digital Transformation in the European Union, (ENDE)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Principal investigator: prof. David Ramiro Troitino (Tallinna Tehkika\u00fclikool)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Partners: full list<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duration: 36 months, 2023<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funded by: European Union, EACEA ERASMUS-JMO-2023-NETWORKS, budget 800 000 EUR<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Webpage: to be available soon<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jean Monnet Networks are EU-funded prestigious research networks made up of scientists heading Jean Monnet Centers, Chairs or Modules. The main areas of the recently established ENDE network are related to the practical implementation of e-governance in the European Union. The rapid development of digitization not only changes the lives of citizens, but also affects the perception of the European Union and the functioning of institutions such as political parties and national parliaments. The aim of the interdisciplinary project, which combines political and European sciences, economics, law, international relations, and sociology, is to understand these processes, forecast trends and consequences of the ongoing changes. In the ENDE network, the Jean Monnet Chair in Wroc\u0142aw is responsible for the Digital Politics area. Beyond Aleksandra Maatsch, core members of the JMC team will be involved in the scientific work, i.e. Professor Anna Pacze\u015bniak (Institute of European Studies), Professor Karolina Boro\u0144ska-Hryniewiecka (Institute of Political Science) and Dr. Edgars Eihmanis (Institute of European Studies).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Institutional Design for Rule of Law Compliance in the EU (InDeComply)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Principal investigator: prof. Carlos Closa Montero (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, CSIC)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Partners: dr. Ruth Ferrero Turrion (Complutense), prof. Aleksandra Maatsch (Jean Monnet Chair, University of Wroclaw) & Gisela Hernandez Gonzalez (CSIC)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duration: 36 months, 2023-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funded by: Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigacion, budget 4 999 686 EUR, PID2021-122448NB-100<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Webpage: to be available soon<\/p>\n\n\n\n

National compliance with rule of law has become a salient problem for the European Union because of the challenges of some illiberal governments. The EU has devised a number of instruments seeking to extract compliance but in general they lack strong enforcement capacity. Research has adopted normative positions on the issue by prescribing what the EU institutions should do. However, we lack deep understanding on why institutions behave in the way they do when facing the challenge of enforcing rule of law. This project addresses precisely this gap: adding knowledge to why do institutions behave as they do when they have to enforce rule of law. The logic differs among institutions: for the Commission, avoiding risking its own authority as guardian of the treaties leads it to a cautious position in relation to enforcement. Previous research has shown that the Commission also anticipates the position of the Council on enforcement to decide its own position. This leads to a preference for dialogue as a mechanism for compliance (instead of enforcement). The Council, in turn, is a reluctant enforcer because its members face a logic of collective action problem. The positions of national governments differ depending on several factors (ideology, geopolitical position, size, etc) but none of the possible combination of factors leads to the activation of enforcement mechanisms. Finally, the EP has followed a partisanship logic when engaging with rule of law enforcement: EP parties tend to protect governments of their own adscription and prevent sanctioning activity. In turn, they act more assertively when enforcement concerns governments ascribed to rival parties in parliament. Much of the scholarly debate on rule of law provides prescriptive positions demanding EU institutional action. In turn, this project aims at explaining the factors that account and condition institutional action\/inaction and how these affect also both compliance and enforcement mechanisms. the project will produce solid empirical evidence from interviews with decision-makers on their motivations, preferences and perceptions for using different enforcement instruments and how expectations on compliance weight also in their decisions. Because of this, findings transcend the specific domain of rule of law and are significant for the theorizing on compliance and enforcement in general within EU and other regional organizations. The project will produce also an interdisciplinary impact: findings will assist legal debates on shaping EU instruments: Lawyers normally dominate these debates and they do not usually produce the kind of instrumental knowledge needed to calibrate the instruments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The impact of the findings of the project are relevant both in theoretical and practical terms. Theoretically, much of the scholarly debate on rule of law provides prescriptive positions demanding EU institutional action. In turn, this project aims at explaining the factors that account and condition institutional action\/inaction and how these affect also both compliance and enforcement mechanisms. The project will produce solid empirical evidence from interviews with decision-makers on their motivations, preferences and perceptions for using different enforcement instruments and how expectations on compliance weight also in their decisions. Because of this, findings transcend the specific domain of rule of law and are significant for the theorizing on compliance and enforcement in general within EU and other regional organizations. The project will also produce an interdisciplinary impact: findings will assist legal debates on shaping EU instruments: Lawyers normally dominate these debates and they do not usually produce the kind of instrumental knowledge needed to calibrate the instruments. practical impact of the project refers to its salience for policy transfer: EU institutions seek to improve their enforcement of rule of law and this project will assist in the search for improving existing mechanisms and\/or adding new ones to the toolbox.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Shifting Territorial Politics after the Pandemic in Germany and Beyond (ShifTerr)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"pandemia<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Principal investigator: dr. Ed Turner (Aston University)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Partners: Stuttgart University, University of Wroclaw \u2013 Jean Monnet Chair, University of Padova and American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duration: 2022\u201324<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funded by: German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), budget 88 995 EUR<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Webpage: https:\/\/twitter.com\/ShifTerr_Aston<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The over-arching question of this proposed project is the following: \u201cHow \u2013 if at all \u2013 has the pandemic re-shaped relationships between national and sub-state tiers of government, and the activity of sub-state authorities, in Germany and other European countries?\u201d.  To address this question, the project assembles a major new international consortium, establishing a new international network of scholars and practitioners, with membership in the UK, Germany, Poland (at the Willy-Brandt-Centre for German Studies), and the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, and also involving experts on Spain and Italy.  The network will meet (virtually and physically), have joint publication outputs and share expertise and data, both amongst its members, through academic publications and with the wider interested public.  It will allow a view of changed territorial politics in Germany to be understood in the context of wider European comparison (specifically with the UK, Spain, Italy and Poland).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Two sides of the same coin? Unraveling the potential of inter-parliamentary cooperation in the European Union (InPaCo<\/strong>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"logo<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Principal investigator: Karolina Boro\u0144ska-Hryniewiecka<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duration: 2022-2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funded by: National Science Centre (NCN), budget 200 000 EUR<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Webpage: https:\/\/politologia.uni.wroc.pl\/Projekty\/InPaCo<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

National parliaments (NPs) and the European Parliament (EP) are two sides of the same coin \u2013 the European Union\u2019s (EU) representative democracy (as defined in art. 10 of the Treaty on European Union) \u2013 and have an important role to play in the EU multi-level governance system as legitimacy intermediaries. Yet, the unfulfilled potential of their cooperation is one of the factors behind the surge of Euroscepticism, populist parties as well as the general disenchantment of citizens with the grand idea of \u2018European project\u2019. At a time when the pandemic has increased social and economic inequalities across the EU and highlighted the mutual interconnectedness of European societies within the framework of health policy, single market, Economic and Monetary Union or environmental and energy policy, inter-parliamentary cooperation (IPC) is also an important legitimizing factor behind shaping EU policies and responses to public policy problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neither the EP nor national parliaments alone are able to perform effectively the scrutiny, policy-shaping or agenda-setting function in the EU governance system. The EP does not have the tools to hold accountable the fragmented executive at the EU level, often lacking formal powers to veto, modify or even review decisions taken in the various intergovernmental fora. In contrast, each national parliament can oversee and sanction no more than one national government. There is also considerable variation in NPs ability to \u2018fight back\u2019 against the crisis-related trend of \u2018deparliamentarisation\u2019. Against this background effective IPC is expected to act as a remedy to the weaknesses of democratic accountability in the EU increasingly dominated by inter-governmentalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

InPaCo starts from the observation of an important gap between the political relevance of IPC for democratic transformation of the EU and the deficit of theoretical and empirical research explaining the driving and inhibiting factors behind effective IPC. Consequently, the underlying objective of the project is to explore the potential of inter-parliamentary relations by identifying factors that foster and impede effective cooperation between national parliaments and the EP in the area of EU affairs. The first research objective is therefore to map and explain the hitherto unexplored institutional preferences of the EP and national parliaments with regard to mutual cooperation. The research questions the project poses are: <\/p>\n\n\n\n