Search

The COVID-19 pandemic witnessed extreme forms of biopolitics, as well as the urgency to reconsider our relationship with the planet. Although biopolitics draws attention to the technologies of domination by public authorities, we cast the concepts of bios and politics in the wider framework of nonviolence. In this framework, bios is the set of practices (praxis) of ordinary citizens. And politics is power created by harm reduction, or actions in daily life that testimony the desire not to harm others or the planet. We leverage nonviolence at three levels, scaling up from the individual to social behaviour and to the planet. The first level concerns nonviolence as self-sufferance and as praxis to claim back the sovereignty of the body. In the second level, nonviolence is collective mobilization – building social capital, self-governance, and solidarity. The third level provides the vision of a diverse ecological citizenship with a sustainable relationship between human beings and the planet. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01844.x Byline: BURKARD EBERLEIN (1), CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI (2) Abstract: In this conceptual article, we explore mechanisms of conflict management in European Union (EU) regulatory policy-making. We build on J.G. March's distinction between aggregation and transformation as the two strategic options to deal with inconsistent preferences or identities that are at the source of social conflict. While this distinction is helpful in mapping conflict management mechanisms, the rigid association of these two options with the rival paradigms of rationalism and constructivism respectively has led political scientists to neglect conflict management strategies that work at the edges of aggregation and transformation. We show the potential of these latter strategies as intelligent 'in-action' hybrids that emerge from ground-level policy-making praxis of actors navigating a complex institutional and policy environment. Specifically, we discuss five strategies: issue-based aggregation; arena-based aggregation (arena-shifting and arena-creation); socialization; re-framing; and proceduralization, their underlying mechanisms and related scope conditions. The theoretical implications of this discussion lead us towards 'strategic constructivism'. In the conflict management mechanisms that are of most interest, norms and ideational structures matter, but they are related to strategic actors who draw on and orchestrate 'ideas' in pursuit of political goals. Author Affiliation: (1)Burkard Eberlein is in the Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto. (2)Claudio Radaelli is in the Centre for European Governance, University of Exeter. Article History: Date received 14 November 2008. Date accepted 14 July 2009.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01771.x Byline: CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI (1), ANNE C.M. MEUWESE (2) Abstract: Can the European regulatory state be managed? The European Union (EU) and its member states have looked at better regulation as a possible answer to this difficult question. This emerging public policy presents challenges to scholars of public management and administrative reforms, but also opportunities. In this conceptual article, we start from the problems created by the value-laden discourse used by policy-makers in this area, and provide a definition and a framework that are suitable for empirical/explanatory research. We then show how public administration scholars could usefully bring better regulation into their research agendas. To be more specific, we situate better regulation in the context of the academic debates on the New Public Management, the political control of bureaucracies, evidence-based policy, and the regulatory state in Europe. Author Affiliation: 1Claudio M. Radaelli is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Centre for European Governance and Jean Monnet Chair in EU Policy Analysis at the University of Exeter 2Anne C.M. Meuwese is Marie Curie Research Fellow at the Centre for Law and Cosmopolitan Values, University of Antwerp Article History: Date received 3 December 2007. Date accepted 3 July 2008.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2009.00820.x Byline: THEOFANIS EXADAKTYLOS (1), CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI (1) Abstract: Abstract In this article, we contribute to the debate on research design and causal analysis in European integration studies by considering the sub-field of Europeanization. First, we examine the awareness of research design issues in the literature on Europeanization through a review of the debate on causality, concept formation and methods. Second, we analyse how much of the discussion of the trade-offs in causal analysis in mainstream political science has percolated into Europeanization studies. We therefore construct a sample of the Europeanization literature, comparing it to a control group of highly cited articles on European integration. This enables us to control if some patterns are specific to the Europeanization literature or reflect a more general trend in European integration. We then look at trade-offs in the Europeanization sample and in the control group. Our findings indicate that awareness of research design is still low. Europeanization articles differ from the control group in the focus on mechanisms (rather than variables) and the qualitative aspects of time in politics. Complex notions of causality prevail in Europeanization but not in the control group and the cause-of-effects approach is preferred to effects-of-causes in the control group but not in Europeanization - in both cases, however, the difference is slight. We conclude by explaining differences and similarities and make proposals for future research. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Exeter Article note: Theofanis Exadaktylos and Claudio M. Radaelli, Department of Politics, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, University of Exeter, EX4 4RJ, UK, Tel + 44 (0) 1392 263176, Fax + 44 (0) 1392 263305, email te214@exeter.ac.uk; c.radaelli@exeter.ac.uk

Ideational explanations of policy change are popular in the fields of political economy, comparative politics and policy analysis. And yet, to make the case for ideational explanations, we must make further progress on the nature of ideas, where they come from, what they consist of, and how they change over time. We highlight four critical building sites concerning the definitional aspects of ideational explanations, micro-foundations, mechanisms and the difference between ideational and cognitive analysis. We make recommendations on how to carry out work in the building sites and describe the range of suggestions and ways forward found in the articles of this Symposium. We also suggest cross-fertilising political science with the findings of neighbouring disciplines that have developed empirically robust models of ideation and cognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Policy Studies Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00778.x Byline: CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI (1), ULRIKE S. KRAEMER (1) Abstract: Abstract Conventional scholarship on international taxation tends to address competition. It focuses on governments and does not integrate purposeful political strategy with the ideational dimension of policy change. In this article we examine co-operation, use a multi-actor perspective to explain the selection of modes of governance and bridge the gap between the strategic and ideational components of policy change. We show how a political strategy pursued by the Commission has led to the emergence of two functionally differentiated governance arenas, dealing with different definitions of tax problems and operating with modes of governance that suit the internal logic of individual arenas. We then examine the limitations of political strategy, by showing how a third governance arena dominated by the European Court of Justice has become increasingly important, with little control exercised by the Commission and the Member States. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Exeter Article note: Claudio Radaelli, Department of Politics, Centre for Regulatory Governance, University of Exeter, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK, email c.radaelli@ex.ac.uk

The article discusses the political impact of European integration on Italian politics with the help of two different research studies.