Call for Paper Abstracts: The Brexit Policy Fiasco

Whatever one’s position on Brexit, Brexit will continue to preoccupy us for years to come. It will also most likely be remembered in the history books as a monumental ‘policy fiasco’ for both Britain and the EU. We are therefore calling for paper proposals focused on two main research questions: First, how did this policy fiasco come about both for Britain and the EU? Secondly, what lessons can be learned from this policy fiasco in terms of a) the future design the EU as a policy-making system, and b) the way that domestic policy systems face and process the challenges to domestic politics that EU membership presents.

Answers to these questions are likely to benefit from the extensive literature on policy failures, fiascos, blunders and crises, some of which has appeared in JEPP over the past years (Boin et al. 2009; Bovens and t’Hart 2016; Oppermann and Spencer 2016). The collection of papers would also underpin the current trend for academic analysts to use their expertise in a way that might have some ‘impact’ on the outside world. Put simply, what does the JEPP ‘family’ of scholars have to say about one of the biggest, if not the biggest crisis in the EU’s history, that might be useful to those policy actors trying to keep the EU project more or less on the rails?

The collection will be edited by Berthold and Jeremy and will be either a Debate Section, in which case papers will be 5,000 words, or a full Special Issue, in which case papers will be 8,000 words. We would expect to work to a fairly tight timeframe in view of the topical relevance . Please send your paper abstracts of no more than 500 words to Berthold & Jeremy by 15 January 2019 (,


  • Boin, A., McConnell, A. and t’Hart, P. (2009) ‘Crisis exploitation: political and policy impacts of framing contests’, Journal of European Public Policy16(1): 81-106.
  • Bovens, M. and t’Hart, P. (2016) ‘Revisiting the study of policy failures’, Journal of European Public Policy 23(5): 653-666.
  • Oppermann, K. and Spencer, A., eds. (2016) Fiascos in Public Policy and Foreign Policy, Journal of European Public Policy (Special Issue), 23(5).

JEPP Google Scholar metrics

The latest Google Scholar journal metrics are out and they had a welcome surprise in store for us. JEPP climbed two ranks and now sits in 4th place in the Political Science category. The journal’s h5-index increased from 39 to 51 (with a h5-median score of 71).

We won’t tire to stress that JEPP’s success reflects the quality of our authors’ work, the countless hours our reviewers invest to keep the journal rolling, and the continued interest from our readers. We greatly appreciate your time and support.

JEPP@25 – Our Best-Of Collection

Throughout 2018, we ask JEPP authors and members from JEPP’s editorial board to share with us their stories as to how the research published in JEPP over the past 25 years influenced their own thinking and research about Europe, the EU, and public policy. This is what they are saying.

Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Scharpf, Fritz W. Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state. Journal of European Public Policy 4(1), 1997, pp. 18-36.

Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen (University of Copenhagen)

Over the years many excellent JEPP contributions on EU law and politics, EU social policy, Europeanization, implementation and enforcement have been major sources of inspiration for my own research. Thus it is not an easy task to pick out one among the many. However, the article ‘Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state’ by Fritz W. Scharpf published in 1997 inspired me greatly when I decided to do a PhD on EU integration and the welfare state. And it continues to be a piece I often return to when working on the complex encounter between EU free movement and the welfare state. The article is extremely rich and covers what to me remain core issues of EU policymaking. It brings together the challenges that Economic integration brings to the welfare state with EU democratic accountability, EU legislative politics and touches upon the ‘rules of negative integration’ as enforced by the European Court of Justice. Interestingly, the article concludes on a positive note, when it lists possibilities for a socially just Europe and states that even in a ‘fully integrated internal market, opportunities for significant and effective political choices are still available at the national level’. In my view, to explore those national policy options and how the welfare state continue to respond to internal market pressures are no less relevant today in a troubled Union as when Scharpf wrote his seminal piece more than 20 years ago.

Thomas Winzen, University of Mannheim, Germany

Lewis, Jeffrey . The methods of community in EU decision-making and administrative rivalry in the Council’s infrastructure. Journal of European Public Policy 7(2), 2000, pp. 261-289.

Rittberger, Berthold. The historical origins of the EU’s system of representation. Journal of European Public Policy 16(1), 2009, pp. 43-61.

Thomas Winzen (University of Mannheim)

JEPP has published many inspiring studies on the institutional and democratic development of the European Union. These two articles, written by Jeffrey Lewis and Berthold Rittberger, respectively, are leading contributions and important influences on my own research. Lewis explored the intensity and complexity of negotiations in the Council of the European Union. For me, these characteristics, and the information deficits they create for external observers, raised the question of whether the European Union can maintain a measure of democratic input and accountability in its policy process. Rittberger’s work demonstrated that policy-makers have long had competing ideas of how to address this question. Variation in these ideas and the abilities of their proponents to influence institutional reforms have shaped the design of the EU’s system of representation. My own work builds on the insight that institutional design ideas vary in order to explain reforms of national parliamentary rights in the EU.

Anne Rasmussen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and Leiden University, Netherlands

Schrama, Reini & Asya Zhelyazkova. ‘You can’t have one without the other’: the differential impact of civil society strength on the implementation of EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy 25(7), 2018, pp. 1029-1048.

Anne Rasmussen (University of Copenhagen and Leiden University)

Being one of the last editorial board members to submit my piece, I have taken the liberty to select a brand new JEPP article, which I think is extremely topical and which expresses a trend in existing research on civil society and interests groups of which I think we will see more in the coming years. The article is written by @ReiniSchrama and Zhelyazkova and presents a large, systematic study on the impact  of civil society strength on implementation of EU policy. It fills an important gap in the literature and is a reference point for anyone interested in compliance with EU law, which remains a key priority of the European Union. It is also indicative of a recent development bringing the study of interest groups and civil society closer to what it once was: a field central to our understanding of politics more generally, not shying away from asking big questions and taking a broader approach situating groups within their wider political system (see Baumgartner and Leech, 1998). The study adds to a recent wave of scholarship that has extended the focus of research pertaining to interest groups by linking it closer to other areas of the broader discipline of political science, such as legislative studies and public opinion research. Schrama and Zhelyazkova’s study underlines that understanding the impact of civil society on democratic processes often requires a consideration of several dimensions of interest group activity and behavior. It finds that civic participation and involvement in decision-making are like ‘horse and carriage’: Only when civil society organizations are included in policy-making does policy implementation benefit from the existence of a vibrant civil society.

Erik Jones, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, United States

Moses, Jonathon W. The social democratic predicament in the emerging European Union: A capital dilemma. Journal of European Public Policy 2(3), 1995, pp. 407-426.

Erik Jones (Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies)

After twenty-five years, it is easy to think of the JEPP as a mainstream, establishment journal in the study of European integration. I remember it as an edgy upstart. The Journal of European Public Policy was the place my friends and contemporaries went to try and establish new research agendas at the interdisciplinary frontier. JEPP was not easier to get into than other journals, but Jeremy Richardson was more willing to place a bet on emerging issues of concern than other journal editors. Sometimes – often, in fact – he won big.

Consider, for example, the collection edited by William D. Coleman and Geoffrey Underhill in the third issue of the second volume. The focus of that collection is on the interaction between the single market, capital market integration, and domestic politics. And the research agenda Coleman and Underhill set out remains central to unlocking everything from the recent crisis of the euro area to Brexit.

The paper by Jonathon Moses is a good illustration. Called ‘The Social Democratic Predicament in the European Union: A Capital Dilemma’, that paper sets out how the integration of European capital markets altered the balance of power between domestic interests in ways that undermined traditional policy formulas. It also explains how monetary integration may address the symptoms associated with market speculation but without redressing that fundamental domestic imbalance.

Moses has returned to that agenda time and again throughout his (prolific) career. His recent ECPR volume on the euro crisis is a straight-line continuation of that trajectory. To understand how Moses got there, careful scholars should remember to go back to the beginning. That article in JEPP was foundational in many respects.  Reading it again after all these years, I am still impressed.

JEPP Bibliometrics 2017

Clarivate Analytics recently released its Journal Citation Report for 2017. JEPP continues to be listed in two sections: Political Science and Public Administration. While the journal dropped a few spots on the Political Science list, it remains safely in the top-twenty (now ranking 15/165), and it maintained its position among the top-ten journals in the Public Administration segment (ranking 8/47). After a record increase in JEPP’s impact factor last year, the journal posted its highest impact factor yet, increasing from 2.982 (2016) to 2.994 (2017).

Marking JEPP’s 25th anniversary this year, these results are special for our editorial team. There is no doubt that the journal’s continued success is built on the tireless efforts of our family of authors, referees and readers, and we greatly appreciate your time and support.

Euroscepticism and the Future of European Integration – JEPP Keynote Lecture at ECPR SGEU 8th Conference

Catherine De Vries (University of Essex)

The Journal of European Public Policy‘s editorial team is proud to sponsor the Keynote Lecture “Euroscepticism and the Future of European Integration” delivered by Catherine De Vries at this year’s ECPR Standing Group on the European Union Conference in Paris. Join us and Catherine on Thursday, 14 June 2018,  from 6.15-8.00 pm at Sciences Po’s Amphitheater Boutmy.

Euroscepticism and the Future of European Integration

The European Union is facing turbulent times. It is plagued by deep divisions over how to shape its future. Over half a century of integration has created a profound interconnectedness between the political, economic, and social fates of member states. At the same time, however, the fortunes of member states have started to diverge dramatically.

As a result, the political fault lines are widening. Today, they crosscut the continent from North to South on the economy and austerity, and from East to West on migration and human rights. What are the effects of these developments on public opinion? By presenting a wealth of empirical evidence, this lecture provides an overview of the contours of public opinion. Moreover, it discusses how it matters for behaviour in elections and how it shapes possible reform of the European Union in the future.


Catherine de Vries is a Professor of Politics in the Department of Government at the University of Essex where she also serves as the Director of the Essex Centre for Experimental Social Sciences, and a Professor and Chair of Political Behaviour at the Free University Amsterdam. She is also an associate member of Nuffield College at the University of Oxford.  Over the years, she has published extensively on the most important societal and political problems facing Europe today, such as the ramifications of the Eurozone crisis, the success of extremist parties or political corruption. Her recent monograph Euroscepticism and the Future of European Integration with Oxford University Press provides a systematic account of public opinion towards Europe.

JEPP@25 – Our Best-Of Collection

Throughout 2018, we ask JEPP authors and members from JEPP’s editorial board to share with us their stories as to how the research published in JEPP over the past 25 years influenced their own thinking and research about Europe, the EU, and public policy. This is what they are saying.

Daniel Naurin, University of Oslo, Norway

Kelemen, R. Daniel & Susanne K. Schmidt (Eds.). Perpetual Momentum? Reconsidering the power of the European Court of Justice. Journal of European Public Policy 19(1), 2012.

Daniel Naurin (University of Oslo)

Over the years, I have found highly inspiring articles in JEPP within most of my fields of interest, including interest group politics, EU legislative politics, deliberation and intergovernmental negotiations. In the last years, a particularly motivating special issue has been “Perpetual momentum? Reconsidering the power of the European Court of Justice”, edited by R. Daniel Kelemen and Susanne K. Schmidt in 2012. The special issue was published at a time when European judicial politics was at cross-roads. Established truths based largely on intelligent speculation was increasingly being questioned by systematic empirical research, raising heated debates about the judicialization of European politics, and the possibility of democratic control over unelected judges. These scholars, however, managed to keep their cool, and provide a nuanced set of articles demonstrating both the opportunities and limitations of judicial discretion set by the EU political system. Furthermore, they pointed at several puzzles and gaps in the literature that I have grappled with in my research ever since, including in particular the sources of judicial preferences, the political appointments of judges, and the politics of organization within the ECJ.

Dimiter Toshkov, Leiden University, Netherlands

Schimmelfennig, Frank & Ulrich Sedelmeier. Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 11(4), 2004, pp. 661-679.

Dimiter Toshkov (Leiden University)

JEPP published this article in 2004, just as the first wave of post-communist countries was officially entering the European Union. Amidst all the fanfare celebrating the success of the ‘big-bang’ enlargement of the EU to the East, Frank Schimmelfennig and Ulrich Sedelmeier presented an insightful and clear-headed analysis of the power of the EU to export its rules outside its borders. The article outlined a comprehensive theoretical framework of rule transfer and offered a perceptive interpretation of the Eastern enlargement process in light of this framework. But the major feat of Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier was probably to demystify the sources and mechanisms of EU influence, and in the process, hint to its limits. This opened a new research agenda that continues to this day to explore the varying success of the EU in exporting its rules and institutions to candidates for membership, to the countries in the EU’s neighbourhood, and beyond.

JEPP’s Reviewer Prize 2017

Frank Baumgartner (UNC Chapel Hill) & Eva Thomann (University of Exeter)

Refereeing is the lifeblood of our profession, at least in this day and age. As authors and editors, we have to take it for granted that our colleagues invest time and effort into assessing the quality of our work. We as editors, of JEPP never cease to be grateful that (until now!) we always find dedicated colleagues who take on this important task for every single paper that we send out for review (and there are luckily many papers making their way to JEPP). We owe our reviewers an immense amount of recognition and gratitude. To emphasize the importance of reviewing, we have decided to award an annual reviewer prize, following the admirable step that some other journals in our discipline have already taken. With this prize we want to recognize the exceptional commitment of our reviewers as well as their selfless investment in helping to improve the work of colleagues.

This year, we are happy to award the first two reviewer prizes to honour these qualities to:

Frank Baumgartner (UNC Chapel Hill)

Eva Thomann (University of Exeter)

Congratulations to our prize winners!

JEPP’s Best Paper Prize 2017

We are happy to announce the winner of the JEPP’s Best Paper Prize for 2017. Two members of JEPP’s editorial board, Will Jennings (University of Southampton) and Arndt Wonka (University of Bremen) selected among all original articles published in JEPP in 2017 (excluding Special Issues) their favorite piece:

Eva Heims (2017) ‘Regulatory co-ordination in the EU: a cross-sector comparison’, Journal of European Public Policy 24(8), 116-1134.

Eva Heims (University of York)

Statement: “The article ‘Regulatory co-ordination in the EU: a cross-sector comparison’ by Eva Heims of the University of York is an important study that shows that national regulators’ attitudes towards co-ordination by the EU are driven by the aim to protect their turf. The author specifies arguments that lead us to expect national regulatory agencies to engage in or refrain from horizontal cooperation between agencies in the EU regulatory system. The paper thus makes an important contribution to a better understanding of the conditions for successful administrative cooperation and implementation in EU regulatory politics. The research design has been carefully crafted to obtain data that can meaningfully inform the theoretical arguments. To provide original insights into regulatory coordination, the author draws on comparative case studies of food control and maritime safety in Germany and the UK. That data was obtained from policy documents and through semi-structured interviews with officials.

The article provides insights both in its theoretical arguments and empirical evidence. It argues for a new understanding of how national regulators use EU coordination to maintain their bureaucratic turf and should thus be of interest to students of public administration, regulatory policy-making and EU politics more generally.”

The prize-winning article will be freely available online until the end of 2018. JEPP’s editorial team congratulates Eva on winning the JEPP Best Paper Prize for 2017!

JEPP@25 – Our Best-Of Collection

Throughout 2018, we ask JEPP authors and members from JEPP’s editorial board to share with us their stories as to how the research published in JEPP over the past 25 years influenced their own thinking and research about Europe, the EU, and public policy. This is what they are saying.

Jale Tosun, Heidelberg University, Germany

Kelemen, R. Daniel. Globalizing European Union Environmental Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 17(3), 2010, pp. 335-349.

Jale Tosun (Heidelberg University)

Together with the JEPP article by Robert Falkner on the “political economy of ‘normative power’ Europe” (volume 14, issue 4), this contribution by Daniel Kelemen offers a thought-provoking and compelling discussion of the rational foundations of the EU’s efforts to spread its environmental standards globally. By adopting this perspective, Kelemen challenges the scholarship that describes the EU a ‘normative’ power. Elegantly written and logically consistent, this piece demonstrates that two-level games also apply to complex and multi-levelled organizations such as the EU. On the one hand, the EU is constrained by demands for ambitious environmental policies by its member states and the European Parliament (internal dimension). On the other hand, the EU itself strives to constrain the policy choices of non-EU states by promoting international agreements that ‘export’ its most preferred policy positions internationally (external dimension). This strategic lens on the EU’s behavior helped in developing an exciting body of literature that combines public policy research with scholarship in international political economy.

Jan Beyers, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Jan Beyers (University of Antwerp)

During the past 25 years, the Journal of European Public Policy, in particular its founding editor Jeremy Richardson, played a key role in developing the research field on interest representation, lobbying and advocacy. In my role as editor of Interest Groups & Advocacy I am always struck by how influential work published in JEPP is for our field; almost every paper we review has at least one reference to an article or a special issue JEPP published. My own research on political representation, but also my work on Europeanization and regional politics, has been heavily inspired by JEPP. For instance, my Endnote database contains no less than 83 papers which I have regularly cited over the years. Hence, it is extremely difficult to point at one single paper that has influenced my work. I would like to highlight some older papers that were extremely inspirational. Interesting about these papers is that they connect the issue of interest representation to broader political science puzzles about institutional development, political legitimacy, responsiveness and accountability. So, there are many good reasons to re-read these three papers:

Grande, Edgar. The state and interest groups in the framework of multi-level decision-making: the case of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 3(3), 1996, pp. 318-338.

Coen, David. The evolution of the large firm as a political actor in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 4(1), 1997, pp. 91-108.

Pollack, Mark A. Representing diffuse interests in EC policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy 4(4), 1997, pp. 572-590.

Christine Reh, University College London, United Kingdom

Simon Hix. The study of the European Union II: the ‘new governance’ agenda and its rival. Journal of European Public Policy 5(1), 1998, pp. 38-65.

Christine Reh (University College London)

Published two decades ago, Simon Hix’s piece postulated—possibly overstated—a “new duality” in the study of the European Union: between the new governance agenda and its, then emerging, comparative rival. The article propagates a more extensive and more systematic use of the established theories and “toolkits” of Comparative Politics to analyse and evaluate the EU’s key political and democratic challenges at the turn of the millennium; this argument is based on a methodological (calling for comparison), theoretical (calling for rationalist actor-centred analysis) and normative (calling for a focus on input legitimacy) critique of the sui generis approach. Over the next decades, both the agenda and its rival went on to become the coherent bodies of scholarship Hix called for in the piece; both produced innovative work on the EU’s government, governance and policy-choices, ranging from deliberative democracy to bargaining models; and both continue to speak to EU scholars from across the methodological and theoretical spectrum. For me, it is therefore less the start of a successful journey from comparative rival to comparative turn that makes this article one of JEPP’s seminal contributions; it is the prescient identification of the EU’s current challenges—in particular, the constraints on domestic welfare choices, the tension between non-majoritarian and competitive elements of legitimation, the need for versus risk of politicising integration—, combined with the passionate plea for a coherent research agenda to address these challenges, that offers us a powerful link between the study of the European Union in the 1990s and the study of the more troubled but also more exciting European Union of today.

Happy JEPP@25: here is to more agendas and rivals over the next quarter of a century!

JEPP@25 – Our Best-Of Collection

Throughout 2018, we ask JEPP authors and members from JEPP’s editorial board to share with us their stories as to how the research published in JEPP over the past 25 years influenced their own thinking and research about Europe, the EU, and public policy. This is what they are saying.

Sara Hobolt, London School of Economics, United Kingdom

Mair, Peter, and Jacques Thomassen. Political representation and government in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 17(1), 2010, pp. 20-35.

Sara Hobolt (London School of Economics)

“Mair and Thomassen’s 2010 article presents an insightful and refreshingly provocative assessment of representation in the European Union.  Going against the grain of much EU scholarship, Mair and Thomassen on the one hand warn against the move towards parliamentary government at the EU level. On the other hand, they argue that despite the deficiencies of European Parliament elections, representation at the European level works better than often assumed because national parties effectively represent their constituents’ interests in the EU. This article thus provides two important lessons to those of us studying democracy in the EU: first, the importance of examining the interconnected pathways of representation at both the national and the EU-level and secondly, the vital role of political parties in shaping and re-shaping European democracy.”

Christoph Knill, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany

Scharpf, Fritz W. Introduction: the problem-solving capacity of multi-level governance. Journal of European Public Policy 4(4), 1997, pp. 520-538.

Christoph Knill (Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich)

“Looking back at 25 years of JEPP, there are definitely many articles and special issues that have been highly inspiring and relevant for my work. Yet, probably the most influential pieces date back to my early postdoc years, because they have been particularly formative for my own analytical thinking. In this regard, the special issue on “the problem-solving capacity of multilevel governance” edited by Fitz W. Scharpf in 1997 (JEPP vol. 4, no. 4) certainly played an outstanding role. The collection of pieces contained highly inspiring papers, grounded in neo-institutional and game-theoretical analyses of dynamics and patterns of EU policy-making that in many ways still constitutes the today’s benchmark for research in these areas.”

Frank Schimmelfennig, Swiss Institute of Technology/ETH, Switzerland

Grabbe, Heather. How does Europeanization affect CEE governance? Conditionality, diffusion, and diversity. Journal of European Public Policy 8(6), 2001, pp. 1013-1031.

Frank Schimmelfennig (Swiss Institute of Technology/ETH)

“Papers on Europeanization account for a large part of what JEPP has published over the past 25 years. Heather Grabbe’s paper on how Europeanization affects governments and governance in Central and Eastern Europe was one of the first studies to apply this perspective to EU enlargement and the candidate countries – and to point out the important role of conditionality in this process. Heather’s paper was also influential in distinguishing various mechanisms of Europeanization and their interaction with domestic and international processes of change and influence in the region. From a present-day perspective, it is worth rereading the article’s conclusions on the “executive bias” of Europeanization in the region: “the EU’s efforts to promote democratic development are at odds with the incentives created by the accession process, where the EU gives priority to efficiency over legitimacy” (p. 1029).”

Frank Baumgartner, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

Frank Baumgartner (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

“I keep a running bibliography of articles and books I use in my work; the current version runs about 230 pages. In that list, I count 38 articles published in JEPP. Discounting those that I have published myself (often with different collaborators), those published in a special issue I co-edited from September 2006 (issue 13, number 7), as well as 15 additional articles published by my collaborators from the Comparative Agendas Project (e.g., works by authors including Breunig, Princen, Soroka, Walgrave, Green-Pedersen, Bevan, John, and others), this leaves another 15 JEPP pieces. As an empiricist, I have to say then that these are the JEPP pieces that have affected my thinking; they are the ones I cite and use in my own work. The interesting element about JEPP and me is that the influence starts with Volume 1, Issue 1, where Guy Peter’s “Agenda‐setting in the European Community” (1993) has place of honor, the first substantive article in the first issue of the journal. This was quickly followed by Dudley and Richardson’s 1996 “Why Does Policy Change over Time?”; Coen’s 1997 “The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union”; Mazey’s 1998 “The European Union and Women’s Rights”; and so on. My list includes articles on such a broad range of substantive issues that I feel that I have learned considerably about what the EU and its member governments actually do (one the reasons I enjoy studying public policy); institutions of EU governance; venue-shopping; framing; multiple-streams applications, not to mention lobbying and policy process issues more generally. Of course I cannot even say how many of these articles I have reviewed for the journal, or ones not published from which I have also learned so much. I attach below the articles drawn from my bibliography, excluding those in which I participated. My involvement with JEPP has been from the beginning, and I’m sure I have learned more than I have contributed. Thanks to the many authors for teaching me so much.”

A Baumgartner JEPP bibliography:

Articles by scholars unconnected to me by co-authorship.

  1. Peters, B. Guy. Agenda‐setting in the European Community. Journal of European Public Policy 1(1), 1993, pp. 9–26.
  2. Dudley, Geoffrey, and Jeremy Richardson. Why Does Policy Change over Time? Adversarial Policy Communities, Alternative Policy Arenas, and British Trunk Roads Policy 1945–95. Journal of European Public Policy 3(1), 1996, pp. 63–83.
  3. Coen, David. The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 4(1), 1997, pp. 91–108.
  4. Mazey, Sonia. The European Union and Women’s Rights: From the Europeanization of National Agendas to the Nationalization of a European Agenda? Journal of European Public Policy 5(1), 1998, pp. 131–152.
  5. Pijnenburg, Bert. EU Lobbying by ad hoc Coalitions: an Exploratory Case Study. Journal of European Public Policy. 5(2), 1998, pp. 303–321.
  6. Meijerink, Sander. Understanding policy stability and change. The interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945–2003. Journal of European Public Policy 12(6), 2005, pp. 1060–1077.
  7. Pralle, Sarah B. Timing and sequence in agenda-setting and policy change: a comparative study of lawn care pesticide politics in Canada and the US. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7), pp. 987–1005.
  8. Daviter, Falk. Policy Framing in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy. 14(4), 2007, pp. 654–66.
  9. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European Public Policy 15(4), 2008, pp. 514–530.
  10. Boin, Arjen, Paul t’Hart, and Allan McConnell. Crisis exploitation: Political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy 16(1), 2009, pp. 81–106.
  11. Ackrill, Robert, and Adrian Kay. Multiple streams in EU policymaking: The case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy 18(1), 2011, pp. 72–89.
  12. Bach, Ian. Measuring quality of life for public policy: an idea whose time has come? Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 20(1), 2013, pp. 21–38.
  13. Ackrill, Robert, Adrian Kay, and Nikolaos Zahariadis. Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy Journal of European Public Policy 20(6), 2013, pp. 871–887.
  14. Duer, Andreas, and Gemma Mateo. Public Opinion and Interest Group Influence: How Citizen Groups Derailed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Journal of European Public Policy 21(8), 2014, pp. 1199–1217.
  15. Beyers, Jan, Tom Donas, and Bert Faussen. No Place Like Home? Explaining Venue Selection of Regional Offices in Brussels. Journal of European Public Policy 22(5), 2015, pp. 589–608.

By my students or collaborators from the agendas project:

  1. Timmermans, Arco, and Peter Scholten. The political flow of wisdom: Science institutions as policy venues in the Netherlands. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7), 2006, pp. 1104–1118.
  2. Princen, Sebastiaan, and Mark Rhinard. Crashing and Creeping: Agenda-setting Dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7), 2006, pp. 1119–1132.
  3. Breunig, Christian. The more things change, the more things stay the same: A comparative analysis of budget punctuations. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7), 2006, pp. 1069–1085.
  4. Walgrave, Stefaan, Frédéric Varone, and Patrick Dumont. Policy With or Without Parties? A Comparative Analysis of Policy Priorities and Policy Change in Belgium (1991–2000). Journal of European Public Policy 13(7), 2006, pp. 1021–38.
  5. John, Peter. Explaining policy change: the impact of the media, public opinion and political violence on urban budgets in England. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7), 2006, pp. 1053–1068.
  6. John, Peter. The policy agendas project: a review. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7), 2006, pp. 975–986.
  7. Penner, Erin, Kelly Blidook, and Stuart N. Soroka. Legislative priorities and public opinion: representation of partisan agendas in the Canadian House of Commons. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7), 2006, pp. 1006–1020.
  8. Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and John Wilkerson. How agenda-setting attributes shape politics: Basic dilemmas, problem attention and health politics developments in Denmark and the US. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7), 2006, pp. 1039–1052.
  9. Princen, Sebastiaan. Agenda-setting in the European Union: A Theoretical Exploration and Agenda for Research. Journal of European Public Policy 14(1), 2007, pp. 21–38.
  10. Mahoney, Christine. Networking versus Allying: The Decision of Interest Groups to Join Coalitions in the US and the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 2007, pp. 366–383.
  11. Walgrave, Stefaan, and Rens Vliegenthart. Why are policy agendas punctuated? Friction and cascading in parliament and mass media in Belgium. Journal of European Public Policy 17(8), 2010, pp. 1147–1170.
  12. John, Peter, Shaun Bevan and Will Jennings. The Policy-Opinion Link and Institutional Change: the Policy Agenda of the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments, 1977–2008. Journal of European Public Policy 18(7), 2011, pp. 1052–1068.
  13. Princen, Sebastiaan. Agenda-setting Strategies in EU Policy Processes. Journal of European Public Policy 18(7), 2011, pp. 927–943.
  14. Princen, Sebastiaan. Punctuated equilibrium theory and the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 20(6), 2013, pp. 854–870.
  15. Citi, Manuele. EU budgetary dynamics: incremental or punctuated equilibrium? Journal of European Public Policy 20(8), 2013, pp. 1157–1173.