Bachelor Thesis from the year 2019 in the subject Politics - Other International Politics Topics, grade: 2,3, University of Mannheim, language: English, abstract: Foreign policy is usually characterized by low-salience issues citizens know little about. This has important societal implications for democratic control (Endres et al. 2015). Can public opinion on such topics therefore influence elite positions? In December 2018, several countries experienced unexpected domestic tensions because of something which usually gets not much attention - the signing of a UN agreement. In Belgium, the debate around whether or not to sign the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (called "e;the Compact"e; here) evolved into a crisis resulting in the collapse of the government (United Nation General Assembly 2019; Lobel 2018a). What led the largest Belgian government party change its position to reject the Compact and discontinue its membership in the Belgian government? I investigate this outlier case using literature on the impact of public opinion on foreign policy and party influence on public opinion. By doing that, I examine what role the top-down influence played compared to bottom-up influence. I argue that only if an issue is salient, a party will try to represent the position of voters while citizens receive cues from the party in order to inform and persuade them. To answer the research question, I analyze both the top-down and the bottom-up process as well as what tactics and tools were used. In the conclusion I point out findings, limitations and the generalizability of this work.

Scientific Essay from the year 2017 in the subject Politics - Other International Politics Topics, grade: 1,3, University of Mannheim (Fakultat fur Sozialwissenschaften), course: Proseminar Comparative Political Institutions, language: English, abstract: Responsiveness is one of the features of a sustainable political system. External efficacy - the perceived responsiveness of the political system - forms the input of citizens. This process is influenced by the extent of decentralization of the respective political system. Decentralization, the transfer of policy-making power from a central government to different tiers of government, structures the perceptions and expectations of citizens and creates different forms of tiers of government that can be adjusted to the special needs of regions and their citizenry. Using data from a survey and the International Monetary Fund, this paper examines the effect of (fiscal) decentralization on perceived external efficacy while controlling for measures of trust, corruption and participation.

Seminar paper from the year 2019 in the subject Politics - Methods, Research, grade: 1,0, University of Mannheim, course: Methods of International Relations: Social Network Analysis in R, language: English, abstract: In this paper I examine what determines cosponsorship in the EP. In order to answer this question, I briefly discuss the relevant literature and theoretical considerations before I present my hypothesis. Then I first present the results of a social network analysis of members of the European Parliament (MEPs), specifically members of the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) based on amendment cosponsorship. To conclude, I discuss those findings and express thoughts about future improvements of the dataset. A large part of the work of representatives in legislative bodies consists of crafting bills and amendments to them. Often, representatives cooperate in this task. There are many reasons for this: Getting more support from colleagues or acceptance from constituents, the sharing of workload or to signal policy positions. Tam Cho and Fowler even found that the interconnectedness of representatives can influence the productivity of their institution, leading to influential bills. Fowler used cosponsorship to determine connectedness or social distance in order to explain roll call votes while controlling for ideology and party. Cosponsorship has been found to have position taking and policy significance. But research about these effects is largely focused on the US with its presidential two-party system. The European Parliament (EP) plays an increasingly important role not only for research but also in the polity of the European Union (EU). As a body consisting of publicly elected representatives from national parties organizing in political rather than in national groups, it constitutes a peculiar case to study.

Seminar paper from the year 2018 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: B, University of Tartu (Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies), course: SORG.04.010: Security Politics, language: English, abstract: This paper asks why states that are already members of alliances regionalize their defence cooperation. Or, in the selected case, why do Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden cooperate in the framework of Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO) although they are either member of NATO, the EU or both? In a globalized interdependent world, membership in multiple alliances and frameworks of cooperation is not rare. Cooperation on defence issues is not the only one having an influence on security but the area with the most direct one. Taking the diverging interests and problems of European states such as capability gaps into account that create different needs and possibilities, it is plausible to theorize that regionalization of defence cooperation is caused by a dissatisfaction how the existing alliance addresses those needs. The main motivations stated by politicians are economic benefits and great homogeneity of the Nordic security community. Deduced from that I propose two hypotheses, one that sees the perceived need to save funds as proportional to the probability of seeking regionalization and the other putting the urgency of such a need into the same positive relationship to the regionalization of defence cooperation. The third hypothesis relates the regionalization back to the defence-related alliance(s) the respective states are already part of by suggesting that regionalization is a way to exert influence over alliances that a state is not part of. There are scholars who argue that what NORDEFCO aims to do is better handled directly through NATO or the EU because duplication is a real risk leading to a less efficient utilization of resources (Petersson, 2010c; Hofmann, 2009) or decrease the centrality of NATO and the EU as institutions (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2015). Regionalization of defence cooperation is an ambivalent policy that is not always perceived positively and does not automatically create more security.

Seminar paper from the year 2019 in the subject Politics - Other International Politics Topics, grade: 1,3, University of Mannheim, language: English, abstract: In December 2017, the net neutrality regulation of the US was repealed. One year later, evaluations of the consequences show an immense bandwidth. Some find that the (American) internet did not change at all or even improve because of the legal change, citing spurious relationships such as increased internet speed rates (Moran 2018). Others see very concrete negative consequences, for example that the promises of ISPs about more network investment, lower prices and no negative traffic discrimination were not kept (Sohn 2018). And research conducted in 2018 using the app Wehe concluded that in their tests, "e;nearly every"e; US cellular ISP (internet service provider) throttles traffic, meaning setting a limit on the available bandwidth for at least one streaming video provider - before and after the repeal of the law took effect (Choffne 2019). So what can be inferred from the 'natural experiment' with net neutrality regulation in the US by first introducing and then negating it again? On the one hand, the fact that the debates sparked primarily in the US at different points of time triggered similar actions in other parts of the world shows the importance of the question. As average citizens are usually not too well informed about or involved in the shaping of internet governance, the massive mobilization of civil society that led for example in the US (2014 and 2017), Brazil, the EU and India to thousands of contributions on public policy consultations is even more striking (Marsden 2017). With an ever increasing demand for more bandwidth and rising numbers of internet users especially in developing countries, not only the topic of net neutrality will become even more salient but users will come to realise this salience. On the other hand, the content of the debates and the number of countries without net neutrality measures in place (Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality 2018) shows relatively small progress since the beginning of the century. Reasons for that are the lack of empirical evidence for common claims or about the impact of introduced regulations as well as the missing link between economic, social, technological, political and human rights based arguments in the discussions (Marsden 2017). But one of the main reasons is probably lacking awareness among policymakers and national stakeholders how pressing the issue is. In the following I try to address those challenges by asking if and when there should be regulations on net neutrality.

Bachelor Thesis from the year 2019 in the subject Politics - Other International Politics Topics, grade: 2,3, University of Mannheim, language: English, abstract: Foreign policy is usually characterized by low-salience issues citizens know little about. This has important societal implications for democratic control (Endres et al. 2015). Can public opinion on such topics therefore influence elite positions? In December 2018, several countries experienced unexpected domestic tensions because of something which usually gets not much attention - the signing of a UN agreement. In Belgium, the debate around whether or not to sign the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (called "e;the Compact"e; here) evolved into a crisis resulting in the collapse of the government (United Nation General Assembly 2019; Lobel 2018a). What led the largest Belgian government party change its position to reject the Compact and discontinue its membership in the Belgian government? I investigate this outlier case using literature on the impact of public opinion on foreign policy and party influence on public opinion. By doing that, I examine what role the top-down influence played compared to bottom-up influence. I argue that only if an issue is salient, a party will try to represent the position of voters while citizens receive cues from the party in order to inform and persuade them. To answer the research question, I analyze both the top-down and the bottom-up process as well as what tactics and tools were used. In the conclusion I point out findings, limitations and the generalizability of this work.

Scientific Essay from the year 2017 in the subject Politics - Other International Politics Topics, grade: 1,3, University of Mannheim (Fakultat fur Sozialwissenschaften), course: Proseminar Comparative Political Institutions, language: English, abstract: Responsiveness is one of the features of a sustainable political system. External efficacy - the perceived responsiveness of the political system - forms the input of citizens. This process is influenced by the extent of decentralization of the respective political system. Decentralization, the transfer of policy-making power from a central government to different tiers of government, structures the perceptions and expectations of citizens and creates different forms of tiers of government that can be adjusted to the special needs of regions and their citizenry. Using data from a survey and the International Monetary Fund, this paper examines the effect of (fiscal) decentralization on perceived external efficacy while controlling for measures of trust, corruption and participation.

Seminar paper from the year 2019 in the subject Politics - Methods, Research, grade: 1,0, University of Mannheim, course: Methods of International Relations: Social Network Analysis in R, language: English, abstract: In this paper I examine what determines cosponsorship in the EP. In order to answer this question, I briefly discuss the relevant literature and theoretical considerations before I present my hypothesis. Then I first present the results of a social network analysis of members of the European Parliament (MEPs), specifically members of the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) based on amendment cosponsorship. To conclude, I discuss those findings and express thoughts about future improvements of the dataset. A large part of the work of representatives in legislative bodies consists of crafting bills and amendments to them. Often, representatives cooperate in this task. There are many reasons for this: Getting more support from colleagues or acceptance from constituents, the sharing of workload or to signal policy positions. Tam Cho and Fowler even found that the interconnectedness of representatives can influence the productivity of their institution, leading to influential bills. Fowler used cosponsorship to determine connectedness or social distance in order to explain roll call votes while controlling for ideology and party. Cosponsorship has been found to have position taking and policy significance. But research about these effects is largely focused on the US with its presidential two-party system. The European Parliament (EP) plays an increasingly important role not only for research but also in the polity of the European Union (EU). As a body consisting of publicly elected representatives from national parties organizing in political rather than in national groups, it constitutes a peculiar case to study.

Seminar paper from the year 2018 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: B, University of Tartu (Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies), course: SORG.04.010: Security Politics, language: English, abstract: This paper asks why states that are already members of alliances regionalize their defence cooperation. Or, in the selected case, why do Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden cooperate in the framework of Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO) although they are either member of NATO, the EU or both? In a globalized interdependent world, membership in multiple alliances and frameworks of cooperation is not rare. Cooperation on defence issues is not the only one having an influence on security but the area with the most direct one. Taking the diverging interests and problems of European states such as capability gaps into account that create different needs and possibilities, it is plausible to theorize that regionalization of defence cooperation is caused by a dissatisfaction how the existing alliance addresses those needs. The main motivations stated by politicians are economic benefits and great homogeneity of the Nordic security community. Deduced from that I propose two hypotheses, one that sees the perceived need to save funds as proportional to the probability of seeking regionalization and the other putting the urgency of such a need into the same positive relationship to the regionalization of defence cooperation. The third hypothesis relates the regionalization back to the defence-related alliance(s) the respective states are already part of by suggesting that regionalization is a way to exert influence over alliances that a state is not part of. There are scholars who argue that what NORDEFCO aims to do is better handled directly through NATO or the EU because duplication is a real risk leading to a less efficient utilization of resources (Petersson, 2010c; Hofmann, 2009) or decrease the centrality of NATO and the EU as institutions (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2015). Regionalization of defence cooperation is an ambivalent policy that is not always perceived positively and does not automatically create more security.

Seminar paper from the year 2019 in the subject Politics - Other International Politics Topics, grade: 1,3, University of Mannheim, language: English, abstract: In December 2017, the net neutrality regulation of the US was repealed. One year later, evaluations of the consequences show an immense bandwidth. Some find that the (American) internet did not change at all or even improve because of the legal change, citing spurious relationships such as increased internet speed rates (Moran 2018). Others see very concrete negative consequences, for example that the promises of ISPs about more network investment, lower prices and no negative traffic discrimination were not kept (Sohn 2018). And research conducted in 2018 using the app Wehe concluded that in their tests, "e;nearly every"e; US cellular ISP (internet service provider) throttles traffic, meaning setting a limit on the available bandwidth for at least one streaming video provider - before and after the repeal of the law took effect (Choffne 2019). So what can be inferred from the 'natural experiment' with net neutrality regulation in the US by first introducing and then negating it again? On the one hand, the fact that the debates sparked primarily in the US at different points of time triggered similar actions in other parts of the world shows the importance of the question. As average citizens are usually not too well informed about or involved in the shaping of internet governance, the massive mobilization of civil society that led for example in the US (2014 and 2017), Brazil, the EU and India to thousands of contributions on public policy consultations is even more striking (Marsden 2017). With an ever increasing demand for more bandwidth and rising numbers of internet users especially in developing countries, not only the topic of net neutrality will become even more salient but users will come to realise this salience. On the other hand, the content of the debates and the number of countries without net neutrality measures in place (Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality 2018) shows relatively small progress since the beginning of the century. Reasons for that are the lack of empirical evidence for common claims or about the impact of introduced regulations as well as the missing link between economic, social, technological, political and human rights based arguments in the discussions (Marsden 2017). But one of the main reasons is probably lacking awareness among policymakers and national stakeholders how pressing the issue is. In the following I try to address those challenges by asking if and when there should be regulations on net neutrality.