Section outline
-
In this course, teams of students will negotiate resolution of one of the current events. The theme of this year's course will be selected by students after the first lecture. The list of topics is attached. The purpose of this simulated negotiation is (i) to understand the obstacles of negotiations of political and economic agreements and (ii) to learn negotiation techniques (iii) to broaden and deepen understanding of the EU affairs.
The course is divided into three parts. Firstly, we start with four lectures introducing the topic, to provide the key information to all participants. The game itself follows. The course is concluded by a follow-up and short essay.
The topic for 2019/2020 is: Climate Change: Shall the EU countries adopt the European Green Deal?
Online sessions: https://zoom.us/j/354596974?pwd=RkhOQjdtWGw1Uk1VYkNBTjVKcG1CQT09
-
Introduction to the course
-
Lecture 1: Climate Change
Introduction to climate science and economic effects of climate change
-
Lecture 2: To adopt or to mitigate? Policy options to tackle the climate crisis.-
Additional details (not compulsory)
A report on how to significantly reduce carbon emissions in "harder to abate" sectors.
-
Lecture 3: The impact of environmental regulation - who will pay for it?
Readings:
IMF - Finance and Development article: Carbon Calculus.
Schwerhoff et al. (2017) Leadership in climate change mitigation - look at the Introduction
The IMF Fiscal Monitor contains overview about potential policy measures that can be adopted, and their evaluation.
The paper by Christopher Böhringer et al. provides analysis of carbon tariffs (check the Introduction)
Gillingham & Stock (2018) provide the source of some of the numbers cited in Carbon Calculus.
-
Lecture 4: The European Green Deal and the European Climate Law.
The main information in the press release. Material on Just transition supplementary, as well as an article by G. Verhofstad.
-
The link is a bit experimental.
I tried to give you specific access rights to the folder - they are linked to the email address which you have in the SIS.
You do not have to download the file, the video can be watched online.
-
-
Time for elaboration of the proposals and meeting with students
Teachers will meet with each group separately to ensure that all groups do understand their roles and tasks.
Schedule:
12:35 European Commission
12:50 European Parliament
13:05 Germany
13:20 Sweden
13:35 Poland
-
Group presentations – position papersUpload your position papers and prepare your presentations. More details in the assignment.
(1 submission per each group is fine)
-
Review of the reports by other groups
Groups are reviewing the reports of the competing groups. The goal is to find weak and strong points.- European Parliament reviews Poland
- Poland reviews European Commission
- European Commission reviews Sweden
- Sweden reviews Germany
- Germany reviews European Parliament
Submit a short presentation summarizing weak and strong points via moodle.
1st voting round
Groups must select alternatives for negotiations. The main goal of the game is "Shall the EU countries and the European Parliament support the roadmap proposed by the Commission or shall they strive for another deal?" => Consequently, you shall select those elements of the proposal that you do not agree with and which should be then subject of the policy proposals.
-
Easter Monday -
Group presentations – Policy proposals
Groups are presenting the policy proposals. -
Review of the reports by other groups
Groups are reviewing the reports of the competing groups. Goal is to find weak and strong sides.- European Parliament will present the Policy proposal
- Poland reviews Sweden
- Sweden reviews Germany
- Germany reviews European Commission
- European Commission reviews Poland
2nd voting round: Groups must elect the final policy solution.
-
Follow-up
Critical review of the experience with all activities: negotiation within and between groups, voting negotiations, analysis of the winning proposals etc. -
Follow-upPhilosophical perspective – Role of values, falsification criteria, and limited influence of expert knowledge on public opinions and policy decisions. If time permits, discussion about the essays.