For many EU citizens, working across the border is the only way to make a living in the EU. The battle for cheap labour has now become a well-oiled machine, in which almost all Western European countries participate. Nevertheless, the employment situation of EU Mobile Citizens, workers of low-skilled and -paid jobs, is often substandard. Challenges are housing, health care and working conditions. In addition, due to the lack of registration in municipalities, it is impossible to have an overview of the numbers and to offer effective help. This is a problem in small to medium-sized cities, where many workers live to work in agriculture, transport, construction, meat industry and logistics. For this study, 32 interviews were conducted in eleven small to medium-sized towns (SMSTs) in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, Poland, and Spain. The study uses three different perspectives: EU representatives of participating regions, municipalities, and employers. The outcomes show that most SMSTs deal with a shortage of housing, and a lack of grip on the registration process of EU citizens. Although there are some success stories, most SMSTs are not in touch with each other to share these. The paper concludes with proposals for further action-research and collaborations to impact local policies.
DOCUMENT
Deze literatuurstudie, geschreven als onderdeel van een vijftal studies naar verschillende fasen in het EU-beleidsproces, behandelt de fase van beleidsvorming door de Europese Commissie (EC). Hierin staat de vraag centraal wat de belangrijkste voorwaarden zijn voor effectieve beïnvloeding in deze fase van het EU-beleidsproces door EU-lidstaten en in het bijzonder door Nederland. In de literatuurstudie is met name literatuur tussen 2016 en 2023 behandeld, die op één of andere wijze kan bijdragen aan inzicht in de manier waarop actoren, en in het bijzonder lidstaten, invloed kunnen uitoefenen op beleidsvorming door de EC. De belangrijkste inzichten die volgen uit de literatuurstudie zijn: • Dat het effectief kan zijn om vroegtijdig een breed scala aan beleidsmakers en andere actoren, zowel nationaal als op EU-niveau, te betrekken bij een gestructureerde en gecoördineerde inzet om beleidsformulering te beïnvloeden. Hierbij zouden dan zo veel mogelijk EU-niveau actoren, zoals koepelorganisaties en implementatie-organisaties betrokken moeten worden. • Dat het een positief effect kan hebben op effectiviteit om zo veel mogelijk samen te werken als regering en oppositie in een eensluidend standpunt naar het EU-niveau, en ook samen te werken met regeringen en parlementen in andere lidstaten. • Dat voldoende menskracht, met name wat betreft coördinatie van inzet en contacten met zowel EC als Europees Parlement (EP), kan bijdragen aan een effectievere beleidsbeïnvloeding. Daarbij helpt het als nauw contact met vertegenwoordigers in expertgroepen wordt gehouden en zwaarder gekwalificeerde personen afgevaardigd worden, zodat zij in de groepshiërarchie binnen expertgroepen een leidende rol kunnen spelen. • Dat het effectief kan zijn om bij het bepalen van de boodschap en beïnvloedingsstrategie, in deze vroegtijdige fase, rekening te houden met de motivaties en belangen van (individuele ambtenaren binnen) de EC en andere lidstaten, en er een EU-wijd belang wordt gepresenteerd. • Dat strategisch nadenken over het proces en de keuzes rond consultatie-instrumenten effectiviteit zou kunnen vergroten Over veel thema’s kon geen uitsluitend wetenschappelijk onderbouwd antwoord gegeven worden vanuit de bestaande literatuur op dit moment, en is aanvullend onderzoek nodig om geïnformeerde uitspraken te kunnen doen over de rol van lidstaten en van Nederland in het bijzonder.
MULTIFILE
In a study commissioned by the Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG), the applied research group European Impact has compiled the results from interviews executed by approximately 240 European Studies students at The Hague University of Applied Sciences. The purpose of this report is to compare and contrast the situation of intra-EU labor migrants (hereafter referred to as EU mobile citizens) in regard to registration, housing, and information flows in 12 different municipalities across the EU. Based on semi-structured interviews with municipal workers and individuals from employment agencies/companies from the selected municipalities, the picture that emerges is one of divergence. There are significant variations regarding the registration procedure and information flows for EU mobile citizens across the selected municipalities. For registration, differences include where the registration takes place, the amount of collaboration between municipalities and employment agencies/companies on registering EU mobile citizens, and the importance of addresses in the registration process. Regarding information flows across the selected municipalities, there are significant variations in the amount and type of information available to EU mobile citizens, the number of languages information is available in,as well as how the information is organized (i.e. in a centralized or decentralized way). Furthermore, while all the member states in which the selected municipalities are located provide information regarding registration on the Single Digital Gateway, not all provide information about renting housing. As for housing, the results revealed that most of the selected municipalities face issues with housing and that EU mobile citizens typically find housing either via their employers or personal network. Based on the results, a list of potential best practices and policy areas that could be improved was compiled. Furthermore, in order to have a stronger overview of policy developments in the field of EU mobile citizens among different municipalities, the VNG could consider hosting a Community of Practice with different municipalities across the EU as well as monitoring Interreg Europe projects focused on improving the situation of EU mobile citizens.
DOCUMENT
This study was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament. It analyses the political and legal dynamics behind referendums on EU-related matters. It argues that we have entered a period of increasing political uncertainty with regard to the European project and that this new political configuration will both affect and be affected by the politics of EU-related referendums. Such referendums have long been a risky endeavour and this has been accentuated in the wake of the Great Recession with its negative ramifications for public opinion in the European Union. It is clear that referendums on EU matters are here to stay and will continue to be central to the EU’s future as they are deployed to determine the number of Member States within the EU, its geographical reach, its constitutional evolution and adherence to EU policies. Only now they have become an even riskier endeavour.
LINK
Wij zijn onderdeel van de Europese Unie (EU), en het Europese speelveld is een dynamische waar je als gemeente- of provincieambtenaar veel kunt halen (en brengen) voor jouw organisatie. Terwijl een heel groot deel van Europese wet- en regelgeving impact heeft op de medeoverheden (denk aan regelgeving over schone lucht, bodem, water, digitalisering), biedt de weg naar Brussel ook kansen voor beleidsbeïnvloeding, netwerken, profileren van je gemeente of provincie en financieringsmogelijkheden ten behoeve van lokale en regionale uitdagingen. Denk aan leren van collega’s uit andere Europese steden en regio’s over hoe zij omgaan met thema’s als wateroverlast, digitale inclusie en woningnood, en Europese financieringskansen voor een innovatieve aanpak om met de gevolgen van klimaat om te gaan. Hoewel jij als (toekomstig) EU-expert binnen je organisatie het belang van investeren in de EU inziet, kan het zijn dat jouw organisatie (nog) niet goed toegerust is op het verzilveren van Europese kansen.
DOCUMENT
In opdracht van de Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten (VNG) heeft European Impact Hub de resultaten samengebracht uit het onderzoek van 250 studenten European Studies aan de Haagse Hogeschool. Het doel van dit rapport is om duidelijk te maken hoe in kleine tot middelgrote steden gewerkt wordt aan huisvesting en registratie van EU-arbeidsmigranten. Op basis van gestructureerde interviews met onder andere Europese vertegenwoordigers in Brussel, lokale beleidsmakers en lokale uitzendbureaus zijn de volgende conclusies geformuleerd. Uit de interviews met de Europese vertegenwoordigers in Brussel blijkt dat de bal vooral uit het eigen speelveld wordt geschopt. Ook blijkt dat de vertegenwoordigers van de deelnemende gemeenten bij de EU vaak niet op de hoogte zijn van de problemen in de regio's. Daarnaast laten de interviews zien dat de deelnemende gemeenten tegen dezelfde problemen aanlopen als het gaat om huisvesting. Ondanks dat huisvesting hoog op de politieke agenda staat blijft de situatie nijpend, in de ene plaats nog meer dan in de andere. Registratieprocessen verschillen per land. Het beschikbaar stellen van het registratieproces in verschillende talen en het vereenvoudigen van het registratieproces blijken succesfactoren. Toch is dit niet overal het geval, in La Palma del Condado dient het registratieproces herziend te worden omdat het te eenvoudig is. Over de problematiek rondom de Europese vertegenwoordiging raadt dit rapport aan de resultaten te bespreken met de afdelingen sociale zaken van de respectievelijke permanente vertegenwoordigingen (PV/EU)'s van de lidstaten, alsmede de (gezamenlijke) inspecties.
DOCUMENT
A welcome policy can be embedded in a municipal authority organisation in a number of different ways. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. To be effective, the local policy makers must be clear on how they hope to make use of the welcome policy and how this will benefit or suffer from different organisational structures. No one ‘ideal’ structure will ‘fit’ all municipal situations in Europe. However, to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the organisational structure that most closely resembles the local situation can increase the chances of successful policy implementation.
DOCUMENT
The last decade we saw an increasing academic, policy, and professional interest in the use of co-creation to tackle societal challenges. Most research focused on qualitative analysis of case studies. This led to an understanding that co-creation is essential for social innovation. We started this paper by analyzing co-creation strategies ex ante to understand how EU-funded consortia intend to tackle societal challenges. By quantitatively analyzing 300 EU projects and qualitatively analyzing the Horizon2020 “co-creation for growth and inclusion” call, our research revealed four different types of consortia. We characterized these types by the coordinators and dubbed them, respectively, as research led, government led, enterprise led, and other led. These consortia were quite different in terms of diversity and preferred partners. We also distinguished three distinct co-creation strategies that are focused on inclusion of stakeholders, the outcome, or tool development. We discovered that these strategies are not linked to types of consortia or projects, but only to the call text. We therefore conclude that the policy design of Horizon2020 led to a program that aims to stimulate innovation, but has become too rigid to be able to do so.
DOCUMENT
This paper is about the political imbalance in the EU when it comes to attracting European agencies. Over the years, mainly due to the Brexit negotiations and for cost-efficiency reasons, many EU agencies moved from the UK to elsewhere, finding a new sea for headquarters functions or other departments. Whenever such a move is announced, EU countries and their candidate host cities jump into the breach to make a beneficial offer. The way these processes take place is a vector of the politicization of European integration. Nevertheless, these new locations of the EU agencies have won the bidding contest, is a process that usually takes place under the radar. The decision-making of these kinds of processes rests with the member states of the agency. Instead of choosing the most strategic place and ensuring an equal distribution among EU countries, which is the deal, often the highest bidder or the state contributing the most wins the agency. Interestingly, these processes have hardly been studied in the light of the increased politicization. This paper is an attempt to fill this research gap, by focusing on three cases and the processes of decision-making. The cases are the Collège européen de police (European Police College, CEPOL) which moved from the UK to Budapest in 2014, the European Medicine Agency (EMA) moving from London to Amsterdam in 2019, and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) which moved its EU-funded program to Bonn and Helsinki mid-2021. The research strategy is as follows: the cases and the lobbying processes are described, then the main political actors are described, and the outcomes are described. The main research question is: How do these processes of political decision-making work out in practice? By answering this question, this study contributes to the discussion on globalized decision-making across the EU and the politicized imbalance which is the result of this.
DOCUMENT
This report is the result of a research interest stemming from the case presented by the City of Budapest on the misalignment between EU funding opportunities and the interdependence of the national government. The main research question was “Which channels exist for a local or regional government to access EU funding directly, without the need for interference of the national government?”. Recent political developments in Hungary have led to an increasing amount of budgetary challenges for the City of Budapest. Besides domestic factors, the European Commission’s decision to suggest to withhold cohesion and RRF funds to Hungary raises the question of what different avenues of direct EU funding instruments might be at the city’s disposal. Therefore, the aim of this research is to provide recommendations on what avenues the City of Budapest might want to invest in in terms of advocacy activities on the EU level. We first conducted a desk research, mapping the current landscape of EU funding instruments under the direct management of the EU (the overview can be found in the appendix). Secondly, ten interviews were conducted in October and November 2022 with several multi-level stakeholders from the European Parliament, the European Commission, the umbrella organisation of cities in the European Union ‘Eurocities’, a Hungarian journalist and a regional representation in Central-Eastern Europe. Based on these conversations, we identified five main findings with corresponding recommendations for action.
DOCUMENT
