Uni-Logo
Sie sind hier: Startseite Chairs Multi-Level Governance Research Projects
Artikelaktionen

Research Projects

 Current Projects

  • Still Images - Moving People? How visual images trigger the willingness to participate in political protest

Funding: Friede-Springer-Stiftung

Start: June 2017

Partners: Prof. Dr. Diana Panke (University of Freiburg), PD Dr. Stephanie Geise (University of Münster), Dr. Axel Heck (University of Kiel).

Abstract

The political power of images has probably never been stronger than in today’s “information age” of digital media networks and social connectivity (Van Dijck, 2013). Digital media and mobile devices allow instant access to information about local, national, and global events, which is mostly visualized – at least in some way. Consumers of digital media are therefore exposed to countless visual representations of terrorism, environmental deterioration, social inequality, and human suffering, to name just a few of the most striking political issues of our time. Although many people are using digital media networks for information purposes on a daily basis (Lenhart, et al. 2010), the mechanism by which images have an impact on political involvement and participation remains unclear and needs further research (Rucht 2010, Anduiza, et al. 2012, Rucht 2014).

At the same time, many images published in digital media are intellectually and emotionally provoking visual statements, and therefore highly politicized. But can still images in digital media also “move” people? Do they encourage political activism and impact the willingness of citizens to participate in political protest? This pilot study sheds light on the nexus between spontaneous, affective behavior and conscious, intentional action in response to visual images in digital media. Therefore, the pilot study will investigate the following research question: how and under what conditions do visual images trigger individual affective behavioral and cognitive responses that ultimately impact one’s willingness to participate in political protest? The pilot study ventures into methodological territory largely unknown in social sciences as it gathers data and theorizes how and under which conditions of emotional valence visual images can trigger changes in political action through combining pre- and post-surveys with eyetracking methodology.

 

  • Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Environmental Conflict and Related Migration

Funding: FRIAS Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies

Start: Semester 2017/18

Partners: Prof. Dr. Tim Krieger (Economics), Prof. Dr. Michael Pregernig (Environmental Social Sciences), Prof. Dr. Diana Panke (Political Sciences)

Abstract:

The research group “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Environmental Conflict and Related Migration” sheds light on a timely and highly important topic, namely the relationship between how resource and environmental conflicts in countries of origin induce migration into host countries as well as whether and why migration fosters conflicts in host countries and how migration feeds back into countries of origin. It addresses three core questions: Under which conditions do environmental and resource induced conflicts in a country of origin induce incentives for migration? Which individuals do indeed migrate? How are migration streams politically governed? These questions will be explored from an interdisciplinary perspective in regular meetings of the Forschergruppe at FRIAS, to which colleagues, junior researchers and guests will be invited. The Forschergruppe will organize in a workshop and an edited volume as well as Freiburger Horizonte talks.

 

  • The Design of International Organizations. Fostering Diplomatic Deliberation?
     

Funding: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Start: exp. Oktober 2017 (for 3 years)

Principal Investigator: Prof. Dr. Diana Panke

Research Associates: Franziska Hohlstein, Gurur Polat

Abstract:

Whether we look at constitutions, founding treaties, or the rules of procedure of states and International Organizations (IO), it is striking that many rules on interaction between actors create room for deliberation, whilst simultaneously limiting the time available for discussion. While the latter speeds up decision making, it risks reducing its quality and legitimacy. How are these competing elements formally and de facto balanced in IOs? Do IOs differ in this respect, and if so, how and why? The project first assesses variation in the extent to which institutional design fosters or inhibits diplomatic deliberation in IOs. Second, a survey captures the actual usage of institutional rules. On this basis, the project explains variation, fit, and mismatch in institutional design and diplomatic deliberative practices within and across IOs. Third, the project examines how and under what conditions deliberative institutional design and deliberative diplomatic practices impact IOs’ problem solving effectiveness and legitimacy.

 

Major Objectives

The number of International Organizations (IOs) and the body of international law has considerably increased since the end of WWII. At the same time, we still know little about how IO institutional designs differ and how variation in their deliberative quality influences the dynamics of interaction between states and ultimately also negotiation outcomes. Accordingly, the project has three major aims: (1) to assess and explain the varying extent to which IOs are institutionally designed to facilitate deliberation among diplomats, (2) to measure deliberative diplomatic practices and explain why they differ between IOs and when and why they might deviate from the formal institutional design of a given IO, and (3) to analyze the nexus between the deliberative quality of institutional design and diplomatic practices of IOs as well as their problem solving effectiveness, decision making speed, and legitimacy.

 

Thus, the project:

  • offers novel empirical insights into the extent to which IOs’ institutional designs are deliberative in nature and into deliberative diplomatic practices across a representative set of IOs
  • develops explanations for variation in diplomatic deliberation between IOs, across stages of the policy-cycle (agenda-setting, negotiation, decision-taking), across interaction arenas (plenaries, committees) and across policy areas
  • provides novel insights into the workings of institutions as well as into practices which limit the effect of deliberative design features or which operate as functional equivalents for formal institutional rules
  • generates essential and original knowledge about the extent to which an IO can foster state-state deliberation & provides insights into which compositions of deliberative design provisions could optimize the relationship between speedy, legitimate and high quality decision making in different IOs

 

 

  • EUN-NET. Studying EU-UN Relations

Funding: European Union

Start: December 2016 (for 3 years)

Partners of Prof. Dr. Diana Panke and her team are the co-ordinators at Athens University of Economics and Business (Spyros Blavoukos, Dimitris Bourantonis, John Galariotis und Maria Gianniou), experts of London School of Economics and Political Science (Karen Smith), Leiden University (Madeleine Hosli), Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Robert Kissack), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Jan Wouters und Edith Drieskens), Adelphi University (Katie Laatikainen), Université catholique de Louvain (Tom Delreux).

 

 

  • "Towards an Increasing Regionalization of International Politics? Comparing the Development of External Competencies of Regional Organizations over Time"

 

Principal Investigator: Prof. Dr. Diana Panke

Sponsor: Fritz-Thyssen Stiftung

Start: September 2016

Research Associate: Anna Katharina Starkmann

 projekt thyssen-stiftung diana panke anna starkmann

(from left to right: Diana Panke, Anna Starkmann)

 

In all geographical regions of the world, states cooperate in regional organizations (ROs). Although most ROs were initially created to foster economic cooperation between their respective member states, almost all of today’s 61 ROs are active beyond their borders as well. Case studies have illustrated that ROs are today important international actors contributing to international problem-solving across many policy areas (e.g. protection of endangered species, climate change). Nevertheless, there is no comparative study that examines to which extent the 61 ROs contribute to the regionalization of international politics and how this has changed over time. The project studies important preconditions for the ability of different ROs to act internationally. It sheds light on how the external policy mandates of the 61 ROs have changed in the period between 1945 and 2015 and across nine external policy areas and explains observed variation between ROs, across policy areas and over time. The project provides important insights into the dynamic evolution of ROs’ external policy mandates, accounts for the fact that some ROs are at the forefront of international politics while others are bystanders and explains why the regionalization of international politics varies across policy areas.

 

  • "Foreign Policy as Public Policy? Exploring Promises and Pitfalls of Public Policy Approaches for Foreign Policy Analysis": Conference 3.-4. November 2016 in Heidelberg

 

Principal Investigators: Prof. Dr. Klaus Brummer (Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt), Prof. Dr. Sebastian Harnisch (Universität Heidelberg), Dr. Kai Oppermann (University of Sussex), Prof. Dr. Diana Panke (Universität Freiburg

Sponsor: Fritz-Thyssen-Stiftung

 

Abstract:

Historically speaking, the study of foreign policy has largely concerned the analysis of decision making processes, individual decision-makers and the effects of international structural factors, anarchy and institutions, and the interactions between these forces. Over the last decades, the erosion of statehood in many areas of the world and the integration of statehood in some has shifted the gravitational pull between hierarchy as the ordering principle in the domestic realm and anarchy in the international sphere. Although foreign policy analysts have started to address these tectonic currents in various ways, e.g. by examining intermestic politics in foreign trade policy, the consequences of this phenomenon for foreign policy analysis have not been considered systematically.

The conference will start out from the assumption that in order to capture these shifts and currents, the study of foreign policy can benefit from taking on board more systematically scholarship in public policy. This is the case, in particular, because foreign policy has become more similar to (and intertwined with) “ordinary” public policies. For once, foreign policy is no longer the more or less exclusive domain of the executive branch of government. With the increasing participation and/or influence of a range of actors such as parliaments, courts, non-governmental organizations, interest groups, etc., national governments no longer monopolize foreign policy and are even struggling to maintain their gatekeeping role. In addition to the plurality of actors that now characterizes foreign policy, allegedly “domestic” fields of public policy increasingly have external implications, particularly in a highly integrated region like Europe.

However, despite this blurring of real-world boundaries between the external and the internal, and hence foreign policy and domestic policies, a divide still persists regarding the analysis of policy-making processes and substantive policies in foreign affairs on the one hand and virtually all other public policies on the other hand. While foreign policy is still predominantly analyzed through the lens of analytical approaches developed in the field of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), “theories of the policy process” are typically used to make sense of developments in all other policy realms. Although public policy scholars dealing with the analysis of domestic policy fields, such as social and economic policy, interior affairs or environmental policy, use a broad array of heuristics, concepts and theories, the possible contribution of such approaches to the analysis of foreign policy has yet to be fully explored.

Against this background, the conference seeks to bridge the “analytical divide” between FPA and Public Policy (and thus Comparative Politics more generally). The presentations will provide novel insights into how and under which conditions foreign policy analysis can be enriched by ‘domestic realm’ public policy approaches, concepts and theories. By making use of analytical concepts developed in the respective “other” field, the conference aims at contributing to theoretical dialogue, integration and innovation across sub-disciplinary boundaries, thereby enhancing our understanding of policy-making processes and policies across issue areas (see the appendix for abstracts of the contributions).

With this purpose in mind, the conference will have presentations from leading international scholars as well as mid-career scholars who have already proven their ability to make crucial contributions to the field. In line with the objective of the conference to bring together public policy approaches and the analysis of foreign policy, participants include scholars from both research communities. 

The presentations will cover a selection of the most important domestic public policy approaches and examine their transferability and adaptability to foreign policy analysis. Specifically, the conference will have three parts. The first part of the conference will cover a range of actor-centered approaches (Multiple Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, Veto Players, Punctuated Equilibrium) while the second part will discuss more structural approaches (New Institutionalism, Network Analysis, Policy Diffusion, Policy Learning). The third part will have a summary discussion of the presentations and a dedicated forward planning session to identify promising next steps in bringing public policy and foreign policy research together. Thereby the conference seeks to establish how bridging the intra-disciplinary divide between public policy and foreign policy analysis can enrich foreign policy studies and shows how exactly foreign policy analysis can benefit from broadening its instruments for analysis. The presentations will also discuss under what conditions such a transfer is less promising due to the ‘sui generis’ character of foreign policy.

 

  • "Nested Games: Regional Actors in Multilateral Negotiations"
 
Principal Investigator: Prof. Dr. Diana Panke

Research Associates: Anke Wiedemann, Stefan Lang

Research Assistants: Marina Ermes, Martin Scharf, Thomas Krebs, Matthias Edelmann

Sponsor: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Duration of the project: October 2013 - September 2016, will be continued until August 2018. 

 

Research has shown that regional organizations (ROs) are often striving to make their marks beyond their home turf, such as the European Union in its neighborhood policy. The project 'Nested Games: Regional Actors in Multilateral Negotiations' is also interested in the external 'actorness' of ROs, but with a different focus. It sheds light on the role of ROs in multilateral negotiations across a series of international organizations (IOs). With the increase in the number of ROs and IOs since the end of WWII and the overlapping membership of states in both, ROs turn de facto into actors in IOs. Examples include ASEAN in the International Labour Organization (ILO) concerning unemployment insurance issues or Mercosur supporting the initiative for a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary in the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Thus, the project draws on multilevel governance approaches to shed light on the phenomenon of the regionalization of multilateral negotiations. Based on a broad range of different ROs and IOs and based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods it analyzes how actively ROs participate in IO negotiations and how influential they are in shaping international norms. Are some ROs more active than others and are some IOs especially prone to RO activity and why? Under which conditions can ROs exert influence over international norms although they are not usually members of IOs? 

 

dfg.jpg

 

Conference Contributions:

2016:
  • EU in International Affairs Conference, Brussels, 11th to 13th: “The EU and other Regional Actors in international Negotiations. Why are some ROs more active than others?” (Diana Panke)
  • ECPR Standing Group 8th Pan-European Conference on the European Union, Trento/ Italy, June 16th to 18th: “The EU and other Regional Actors in international Negotiations. Why are some ROs more active than others?” (Diana Panke)
  • ISA Annual Convention Atlanta/USA, February 18th: “Speaking with one voice? Activity of Regional Actors in International Peace and Security Negotiations” (Diana Panke, Anke Wiedemann).
  • ISA Annual Convention Atlanta/USA, February 18th: “A Peaceful Cooperation? Varying Success of Regional Actors in the Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations” (Diana Panke, Anke Wiedemann).

 

2015:
  • British International Studies Association conference 2015, 17th to 19th June 2015 in London: "Regional Actors in International Organizations. Towards a Regionalization of International Negotiations?" (Panke, Lang und Wiedemann)
  • DVPW Congress Duisburg/ Germany; September 25th: “The International Effects of Overlapping Regionalism”. Panel “Ursachen und Konsequenzen von überlappender Mitgliedschaft in Regionalorganisationen” (Diana Panke, Stefan Lang und Anke Wiedemann).
  • ISA Annual Convention New Orleans/ USA, February 20th: “Regional Organizations as Shapers of International Norms?” (Stefan Lang und Anke Wiedemann).
  • ISA Annual Convention New Orleans/ USA, February 19th: “Overlapping Regionalization and its International Effects” (Diana Panke).
  • ISA Annual Convention New Orleans/ USA, February 19th: “Regional Actors in International Institutions. Active = Influential?” (Diana Panke, Stefan Lang und Anke Wiedemann).
  • ISA Annual Convention New Orleans/ USA, February 17th: “Multiple Irons in the Fire: Effects of Overlapping Memberships in United Nations Negotiations” (Diana Panke, Stefan Lang and Anke Wiedemann; Contribution to the workshop “Overlapping Regionalism: Drivers, Interactions, Effects”).
  • Workshop 'The EU at the UN General Assembly” Athen Athens/Greece, February 13th – 14th. ”The Effectiveness of Regional Actors in the UNGA. The EU in a comparative perspective” (Diana Panke).
 
2014:
  • Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen/ Germany, November 20th: “Regional Actors in International Organizations- Towards a Regionalization of International Negotiations?” (Diana Panke).
  • European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), Glasgow/ United Kingdom, September 6th: “Regional Groups in the United Nations – Coordinated Influence?” (Diana Panke, Stefan Lang und Anke Wiedemann).
  • ISA Annual Convention, Toronto/Canada, March 28th: “Regional Actors in International Institutions. Why do some participate more actively in negotiations than others?” (Diana Panke, Stefan Lang und Anke Wiedemann).
 
 

Publications:

  • Diana Panke, Stefan Lang, Anke Wiedemann (forthcoming) "Regional Actors in Multilateral Negotiations. Active and Successful?", ECPR Press.
  • Diana Panke, Stefan Lang, Anke Wiedemann (forthcoming) "The Voices of Regional Organizations in the UNGA: Who is most active and why?" In: Journal of International Relations and Development.
  • Diana Panke (forthcoming) "Regional Actors in International Security Negotiations." In: European Journal for Security Reasearch. DOI: 10.1007/s41125-016-0010-4
  • Diana Panke (2017): Speech is silver, silence is golden? Examining state activity in international negotiations. In: The Review of International Organizations, Vol.12, No. 1, 121-146..
  • Diana Panke, Stefan Lang, Anke Wiedemann (2017) "State & Regional Actors in Complex Governance Systems. Exploring Dynamics of International Negotiations." In: British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 19, No. 1, 91-112.

  • Diana Panke, Stefan Lang und Anke Wiedemann (2015): „Regional Actors in the United Nations. Exploring the Regionalization of International Negotiations”. In: Global Affairs, Vol. 1, Issue 04-05, 431-440. 
  • Diana Panke (2014) “The European Union in the United Nations. An Effective External Actor?”. In: Journal of European Public Policy. Bd. 21, Nr. 7, 1050-1066.
  • Diana Panke (2014) "Communicative Power Europe? How the EU Copes with Opposition in International Negotiations". In: European Foreign Affairs Review, Bd. 19, Nr. 3, 357-372.
  • Diana Panke (2013) “Regional Power Revisited. How to Explain Differences in Coherency and Success of Regional Organizations in the United Nations General Assembly”. In: International Negotiation Journal. Bd. 18, Nr. 2, 265–291.
 
 
 

 

Link to: Recently Completed Projects

 

 Publications Prof. Dr. Diana Panke

Benutzerspezifische Werkzeuge