Podcasts-Séminaire Général du CEE

Podcasts-Séminaire Général du CEE

New: Elizabeth POPP BERMAN, Associate Professor of Organizational Studies
  • Actualité Sciences PoActualité Sciences Po

Le cycle du Séminaire Général du CEE invite des chercheuses et chercheurs extérieurs à Sciences Po, français et/ou étrangers, à présenter leurs recherches et articles en cours ou dernière publication. Le format de discussion consiste à associer systématiquement chercheuses et chercheurs seniors et juniors.

Retrouvez les podcasts de ce cycle sur cette page.

Vous pouvez également vous inscrire à notre lettre d’information sur l'ensemble de nos séminaires, tous cycles confondus, pour recevoir les invitations à nos futurs évènements.

Elizabeth Popp Berman is Associate Professor of Organizational Studies and (by courtesy) Sociology at the University of Michigan "Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in U.S. Public Policy"

Her new book, Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in U.S. Public Policy, has just been published by Princeton University Press; her previous book, Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine, won several awards from the American Sociological Association and the Social Science History Association. She received her PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, and has broad interests in the sociology of science, economic sociology, and higher education.

ERIK JONES, Director of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute
"Two Models for the Politicization of European Integration: Postfunctionalism, Anti-Establishment Politics, and the Italian Case"

He uses Italy’s relationship with the European Union over the past three decades to explore the difference between two models for the politicization of European integration. The paper draws the causal mechanism for one model from the postfunctionalist argument made by Hooghe and Marks (2009, 2018). It draws the causal mechanism for the other (anti-establishment) model from the writings of Stefano Bartolini (2005) and Peter Mair (2007, 2013). Although the two models can exist simultaneously, it is possible to test for predominance using the strategy for ‘fair causal comparison’ set out by Miller (1988). The evidence suggests that both mechanisms are present in Italy, but the anti-establishment mechanism is more important. This finding contributes both to our theoretical understanding of the politicization of Europe and to our empirical understanding of the Italian case

ANN MORNING, Associate Professor of Sociology at New York University "an ugly word: rethinking race in Italy and the USA"

Ann Morning is an Associate Professor of Sociology at New York University as well as the Academic Director at 19 Washington Square North, the home of NYU Abu Dhabi in New York. Trained in economics, political science, and international affairs as well as sociology, her research interests include race, demography, and the sociology of science, especially as they pertain to census classification worldwide and to individuals’ concepts of difference. She is the author of The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach about Human Difference (University of California Press 2011), and co-author of An Ugly Word: Rethinking Race in Italy and the United States (Russell Sage Foundation 2022, with Marcello Maneri). Morning was a 2008-09 Fulbright research fellow at the University of Milan-Bicocca and a Visiting Professor at Sciences Po in 2019. She was a member of the U.S. Census Bureau’s National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations from 2013 to 2019 and has consulted on racial statistics for the European Commission and the United Nations. Morning holds her B.A. in Economics and Political Science from Yale University, a Master’s of International Affairs from Columbia University, and her Ph.D. in Sociology from Princeton University.

She presented her research during the General Seminar of the CEE "an ugly word: rethinking race in Italy and the USA".

Chloe Alexandre, Florent Gougou, Simon Persico (Sciences Po Grenoble, Pacte) "What unites and divides the environmental movement? Ideological consensus and conflict amongst French climate activists"

Le mouvement écologiste a franchi une étape supplémentaire ces dernières années, avec la naissance de nouvelles organisations utilisant de nouveaux répertoires et rassemblant un nombre sans précédent de partisans et d'activistes à travers le monde. Pourtant, plusieurs enjeux continuent de diviser ce mouvement. Comment les militants contemporains du climat se positionnent-ils face à ces débats ? Quelles valeurs définissent le mouvement écologiste et quels conflits idéologiques divisent les militants du climat qui y participent ? Afin de répondre à ces questions, cet article commence par rappeler sept grands débats idéologiques qui divisent le mouvement écologiste depuis ses origines : 1. Décroissance vs Productivisme ; 2. Écocentrisme vs Anthropocentrisme ; 3. Démocratie contre Autoritarisme ; 4. Néo-malthusianisme contre égalitarisme ; 5. Responsabilité individuelle contre action gouvernementale ; 6. Collapsologie vs Eco-optimisme ; 7. Technophobie vs. Techno-modernisme 8. Écoféminisme post-colonial vs. Valeurs occidentales traditionnelles vs. enquête ponctuelle auprès de plus de 10 000 répondants proches du mouvement climatique. Nous montrons que, dans un contexte de consensus élevé entre les répondants sur la plupart des questions environnementales, deux principales dimensions conflictuelles façonnent l'espace idéologique de l'activisme climatique français. Le premier et le plus puissant oppose les militants « verts clairs » aux plus radicaux. La deuxième dimension du conflit concerne la place laissée à la liberté individuelle par rapport au contrôle étatique.

Chloe Alexandre, Florent Gougou, Simon Persico (Sciences Po Grenoble, Pacte) présentent les résultats de leurs recherches qui confirment également l'alignement croissant du conflit environnemental sur le clivage gauche-droite.

Isabelle Guinaudeau, Sciences Po Bordeaux, Centre Emile Durkheim, CNRS: Unequal mandate representation? Group targeting and citizens’ responses to electoral pledges and their realisations

Isabelle Guinaudeau is a political scientist, CNRS researcher working on party competition and comparative politics.

She presents under the SGCEE her current research.

Shamus Khan, Professor of Sociology and American Studies at Princeton University "Sexual Citizens: A study of sexual assault on campus"

Shamus Khan presents at the CEE's General seminar the book "Sexual Citizens" co-written with Jennifer S. Hirsch. They draws upon their book an intimate portraits of life and sex among today’s college students.

It's an entirely new way to understand sexual assault. The result of their reflexion transforms the understanding of sexual assault and provides a new roadmap for how to address it.

Natascha Zaun, Assistant Professor in Migration Studies at the European Institute at LSEWhen populist governments become assertive: The role of politicisation in explaining deadlock of EU asylum policymaking

Natascha Zaun specialises in EU and international migration governance and EU policymaking.

She presents during the general seminar of the Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics her paper about the case of the deadlocked Dublin IV negotiations.

Brenda Van Coppenolle, Department of Government, University of Essex: Deliberating Constitutions: Lotteries in Constituent Assemblies, Denmark in 1848

Brenda Van Coppenolle, lecturer in the Department of Government, University of Essex, answered during the general seminar of the Center of european studies to the following questions:

How are constitutions drafted, and how does the structure of deliberation affect the final document?

Indeed, Brenda Van Coppenolle, Jens Carstens (Sciences Po, CEE) and Jan Rovny(Sciences Po, CEE & LIEPP) highlight the need to better understand the tools of deliberative democracy. Caterina Froio (Sciences Po, CEE) was the chair.

Bernhard Ebbinghaus, University of Oxford: Europe’s Social Model facing the Covid-19 Employment Crisis: Innovating Job Retention Policies to Avoid Mass Unemployment.

The Professor Bernhard Ebbinghaus, a visiting professor from the University of Oxford (Department of Social Policy & Intervention)analyzed during the general seminar of the Center of european studies an Europe facing multiple challenges during the Covid-19 pandemic, including the problem of securing jobs and income.

 

Cécile Laborde, Université d’Oxford, Nuffield Chair en Théorie Politique Laïcité, séparation et progressisme: l’Inde et la théorie politique comparée 

La laïcité, en Europe et en Amérique du Nord, est comprise comme un principe de séparation entre l’Etat et les religions. Cette définition toutefois ne rend pas pleinement compte de la logique constitutionnelle et politique à l’œuvre dans bon nombre d’Etats laïques non-occidentaux. En Inde, l’Etat intervient activement dans la sphère religieuse et reconnait officiellement les groupes religieux. Ces tendances interventionnistes condamnent-elles l’Inde à n’être qu’un Etat imparfaitement laïque, comme le jugeait Donald Smith dans India as a Secular State?

Dans cette conférence, l’auteure montre que la laïcité indienne ne saurait être mesurée à l’aune d’un simple principe de séparation. La laïcité à l’indienne aspire à des idéaux progressistes plus généraux : la liberté personnelle (pour les femmes et les dalits) et l’égalité de statut (pour les minorités religieuses). Elle est compatible, en principe, avec une intervention ciblée de l’Etat dans la sphère religieuse, au nom de ces idéaux. La compréhension de cette laïcité est utile à la fois dans une perspective de théorie politique comparée (le global secularism) et pour saisir l’originalité profonde du constitutionalisme indien.

Mais elle éclaire aussi des enjeux contemporains cruciaux, autour du déploiement de la rhétorique de la laïcité par les nationalistes hindous au pouvoir. C’est parce que le BJP adhère à une vision séparationniste plutôt que progressiste qu’il réussit à présenter son idéologie nationaliste comme le rétablissement d’une laïcité authentique. C’est ce que l’auteure entend démontrer en analysant le discours nationaliste hindou sur les droits des minorités, les droits des femmes, et sa défense de l’hindouisme comme culture plutôt que comme religion.

Chris Bickerton, University of Cambridge, Department of Politics and International Studies & Carlo Invernizzi Accetti, City College of New York "Technopopulism The New Logic of Democratic Politics"

Technocratic appeals to expertise and populist invocations of 'the people' have become mainstays of political competition in established democracies. This development is best understood as the emergence of technopopulism—a new political logic that is being superimposed on the traditional struggle between left and right. Political movements and actors—such as Italy's Five Star Movement and France's La République En Marche—combine technocratic and populist appeals in a variety of ways, as do more established parties that are adapting to the particular set of incentives and constraints implicit in this new, unmediated form of politics. In the first book-length treatment of the phenomenon of technopopulism, we combine theoretical and historical approaches, offering a systematic definition of the concept of technopopulism, while also exploring a number of salient contemporary examples. This book* provides a detailed account of the emergence of this new political logic, as well as a discussion of its troubling consequences for existing democratic regimes. It ends by considering some possible remedies that go beyond the simplistic idea that in the right 'dose' populism and technocracy can counter-balance one another.

Elisabeth Ivarsflaten, University of Bergen & Paul Sniderman, Stanford University "The Struggle for Inclusion: Muslim Minorities and the Democratic Ethos"

The politics of inclusion is about more than hate, exclusion, and discrimination. It is a window into the moral character of contemporary liberal democracies. The Struggle for Inclusion* introduces a new method to the study of public opinion: to probe, step by step, how far non-Muslim majorities are willing to be inclusive, where they draw the line, and why they draw it there and not elsewhere. Those committed to liberal democratic values and their concerns are the focus, not those advocating exclusion and intolerance.

Notwithstanding the turbulence and violence of the last decade over issues of immigration and of Muslims in the West, the results of this study demonstrate that the largest number of citizens in contemporary liberal democracies are more open to inclusion of Muslims than has been recognized. Not less important, the book reveals limits on inclusion that follow from the friction between liberal democratic values. This pioneering work thus brings to light both pathways to progress and polarization traps.

Frédéric Mérand, Centre d’études et de recherches internationales de l’Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM) "Un sociologue à la Commission européenne"

Proposant une sociologie du travail politique, ce livre rend compte de quatre années d’observation au sein du cabinet d'un commissaire européen. De 2015 à 2019, Pierre Moscovici et son équipe ont été confrontés à la crise grecque, aux faiblesses de l’Union économique et monétaire, aux scandales d'évasion fiscale et à la menace populiste italienne. Entre les luttes partisanes et les jeux diplomatiques, entre les tenants de la rigueur et les architectes d’un gouvernement économique, ils ont mené la politique de la zone euro. Frédéric Mérand a accompagné « les Moscovici » dans leurs réunions, de Bruxelles à Strasbourg, de Washington à Athènes. À la cantine ou dans les couloirs du Berlaymont, le siège de la Commission,l'auteur les a interrogés sur leurs stratégies et leurs espoirs. Frédéric Merand a aussirecueilli leurs peurs et leurs déceptions. Les observations qui en découlent permettent de comprendre comment on « fait de la politique » dans l'Union européenne. Au cours de ce récit ethnographique, la France n'est jamais loin. Décodant la trajectoire européenne d'un commissaire socialiste français, d'abord sous François Hollande puis Emmanuel Macron, Un sociologue à la Commission européenne explore les dynamiques qui parfois rapprochent Bruxelles et Paris, mais souvent les éloignent.

Paul Pierson, University of California, Berkeley "Let Them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality"

Let Them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality situates Donald Trump’s ascendance in the broader currents of American political development. Unlike many variants of "right-wing populism" the American version represents a curious hybrid of populism and plutocracy. Although American right-wing populism has real social roots, it has long been nurtured by powerful elites seeking to undercut support for modern structures of economic regulation and the welfare state. Steeply rising inequality in the United States generated an acute form of what Daniel Ziblatt has termed "the conservative dilemma." Over the past few decades, the Republican Party rejected a path of economic moderation. Instead, it chose to construct an apparatus for stoking political outrage, particularly in forms that accentuate and intensify racial divisions. American political institutions offered a distinctive opportunity for a populist figure to draw on this fury to first capture the nomination of the GOP, and from that position to ascend to the White House. Yet the administration’s substantive agenda constituted a full-throated endorsement of the GOP economic elite’s long-standing demands for cuts in social spending, sharp tax reductions for the wealthy, and the gutting of consumer, worker and environmental protections. The chasm between Trump’s rhetoric and his actions justifies a more skeptical assessment of the breadth and depth of American populism, one that acknowledges how its contours were shaped by the nation’s unusual political institutions, its intensifying political polarization and the out-sized influence of the wealthy. While Trump lost the 2020 election, these structural conditions remain. So do the distressing incentives these conditions create for one of the nation's two major political parties.

Retour en haut de page