As part of our mission to advance scholarship on contemporary European studies, the Center for European Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill supports working groups that foster both faculty research and graduate student mentoring in the profession. Every working group we fund has graduate student involvement and includes non-UNC members.
While the EU has agreed to create a common immigration policy, the right to free movement within the EU and the diverse minority populations currently living in the member states raise persistent questions regarding identity and rights of the individual, not to mention inclusion/exclusion. Restrictions on the right to wear a veil in France and on constructing minarets in Switzerland reveal the problem of defining “European” and belonging in a culturally diverse Union. The influx of North African asylum seekers from Italy into France leads to debate on what it means to be part of a community with open borders, and the arrival of asylum seekers from Libya by boat presents challenges regarding asylum law and the role of Europe in the international theater. The necessarily transnational nature of the EU intersects – and often conflicts – with global population movements and the rights of the individual versus the community and the state. Immigration and population movement are essential aspects of European history, but have been traditionally overlooked due to nation- and ethno-centric historical approaches that over-emphasize majorities as normatively superior entities. This graduate student working group for Transnational and Minorities’ History (TRAMS) examines the inherently transnational aspects of European minorities and addresses their diverse concerns. The group’s interdisciplinary nature brings together faculty and graduate students from history, geography, and communication studies to discuss approaches to the study of cross-cultural interactions between diverse groups of people around the globe. Designed to support graduate students who are interested in modern population movements and interactions with minority groups (both migrant and indigenous) within defined geographic areas, the group meets bimonthly to consider major scholarship in the field as well as to provide professors and graduate students the opportunity to present their own work. In addition, the TRAMS group organizes half-day workshops on comparative European migration. UNC Faculty Coordinators: D. Reid, C. Lee, S. Pennybacker, K. Hagemann, and K. Jarausch (HIST). UNC Graduate Coordinator: B. Lehman.
The Chapel Hill expert surveys estimate party positioning on European integration, ideology and policy issues for national parties in a variety of European countries. The first survey was conducted in 1999, with subsequent waves in 2002, 2006, 2010. The number of countries increased from 14 Western European countries in 1999 to 24 current or prospective EU members in 2006 and 2010, and the number of national parties increased from 143 to 237. The 2010 survey also includes parties in Croatia, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey. Separate surveys have been conducted in the Balkan countries (Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia). Common to all surveys are questions on parties’ general position on European integration, several EU policies, general left/right, economic left/right, and gal/tan; later surveys contain also questions on non-EU policy issues. A new component of the 2010 CHES is a series of web experiments to gain further insight into the information utilized by experts when placing political parties. To date, the project has yielded 6 edited books or special journal issues, over 25 scholarly articles/book chapters, and 6 doctoral dissertations; it has been cited in over 130 scholarly journal articles.
Project Coordinators: E. Edwards, L. Hooghe, G. Marks, and M. Vachodova (UNC-Chapel Hill); R. Bakker (Univ. of Georgia); C. de Vries (Univ. of Oxford, UK); S. Jolly (Syracuse Univ.); J. Polk (Univ. of Gothenburg, Sweden); J. Rovny (Sciences Po); M. Steenbergen (Univ. of Zuich, Switzerland).
Launched in 2008, this working group examines Muslim integration in Europe and the changing relations between Islam and Europe by comparing the veiling in France with the problematic status of veiling in Turkey and discussions there regarding secularism, public space, citizenship, and modernity. Turkey is indeed a critical case study for a further exploration of Muslim integration in Europe, as well as the changing relations between Islam and Europe, due in part to the heated debate concerning Turkey’s potential admission to the EU. One of the core outcomes of this working group is a new website ReOrienting the Veil, launched in Fall 2012. The website adopts an interdisciplinary, multimedia approach to the topic and includes literary excerpts (in English translation), samples of music, film, art, women’s media, fashion and photography, in order to give voice to Muslim and secular, veiled and unveiled, male and female, scholars, artists and students. The working group has also participated in and organized a series of presentations, workshops, and conferences designed to showcase the new web resource.
UNC Faculty Coordinators: Antle (ROML); Amer (ASIA).
Established in 2008, this working group is a collaboration with UNC-Chapel School of Law aimed at inviting criminal law and procedure scholars and practitioners from Europe to participate in a series of seminars and conference on the future of criminal law procedure. At each of these seminars, distinguished speakers from the EU, the US, and Canada presented papers discuss the future of criminal law and procedure and the various ways in which inquisitorial and adversarial systems are approaching and borrowing from each other. The audience at the seminars consists of judges and lawyers from the region as well as students from UNC-Chapel Hill and Duke Law Schools. Papers from each of these seminars have been or will be published in the North Carolina Journal of International Law and Development, furthering the impact of the initiative. Since 2011, the focus on the working group has been specifically criminal law, criminal procedure, and sentencing in the EU and North America. Working closely with the Univ. of Bologna at Ravenna and the Univ. of Warwick, the working group has organized three recent conferences on a Criminal Justice and Discretionary Justice (2013), Preventive Detention and Criminal Justice (2012), and Procedural Safeguards for Suspects: What Can Europe Learn from the American Experience? (2011).
UNC Faculty Coordinator: M. Corrado (LAW).
Since the 1990s, EU citizens have become more skeptical about European integration yet the European project can hardly succeed without popular support. This becomes even more important at a time when European governments must pool their resources – including their taxpayers’ money – to provide assistance to Eurozone members with financial difficulties. What seems crucial is whether Europeans conceive of individuals in other EU member states as “us” or “them”, i.e. as members of their in-group or an out-group. Thus, the extent to which Europeans feel that they are members of one community becomes a key for the success of European integration. Building on their previous research on the relationship between national identities and support for European integration, this working group focuses specifically on the emergence of a European identity among young people by analyzing the effect of the Erasmus study abroad experience on student identification with the EU. Ever since Karl Deutsch’s seminal “Nationalism and Social Communication” (1953), social scientists have hypothesized that levels of trust and feelings of closeness increase when people interact with each other. Interactions between people from different EU countries may thus be crucial in generating feelings of connectedness and closeness, which in turn could fuel both readiness and demand for European integration. If cross-border contact between Europeans leads to a feeling of closeness, a European identity, and eventually a profound support for European integration, students studying in another EU member state can serve as a critical test case for this mechanism.
The working group is generating a panel data set in order to analyze how the Erasmus experience affects students’ identification with the EU over time. The project involves a collaboration with 20 German universities and advanced technical colleges that offer their students spots in the Erasmus student exchange program. Thus, students from all kinds of academic backgrounds, at different stages in their studies, and traveling to different EU member states will be surveyed via an online instrument and using various measures for identification with the EU as well as political attitudes. This research will yield a panel data set unique in its diversity of participants, size, and panel length. The data will be a valuable source for an Erasmus policy program evaluation. For example, it provides information on the groups of students among which Erasmus is most successful at promoting academic and social interactions.
UNC Faculty Coordinators: L. Hooghe and G. Marks (POLI); UNC Graduate Coordinator: F. Stoeckel (POLI).
The EU enlargement process has been extremely successful at promoting democratic and economic reforms in neighboring post-communist states. The simplest way to understand EU leverage is that the tremendous benefits of joining the EU create incentives for political elites to satisfy the vast requirements of membership. Ten post-communist states joined in 2004 and 2007 after completing substantial political and economic reforms. What about the Western Balkan states that remain in the EU’s membership queue? There is tremendous variation among the domestic conditions in these states, yet Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia and Croatia share some common attributes: a low quality democracy (especially as measured by the rule of law), low state capacity, high levels of corruption, and low levels of economic growth, as compared to the post-communist states that joined the EU in 2004. Some of the major political parties in the Western Balkan states still use ethnic scapegoating to win votes and to distract citizens from failed social and economic policies. Myriad external actors, including the US government, NATO, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and internationally connected non-governmental institutions, have played a part in domestic developments, citing EU membership as the overarching goal, regardless of their specific work or agenda in the region. The commitment of ruling elites to qualifying for EU membership has waxed and waned, opening up the question whether domestic conditions in some states are fundamentally different from those in other post-communist states that were previously in the EU membership queue.
This working group considers how domestic political change in the Western Balkan states interacts with the EU’s enlargement process, specifically focusing on political parties and the positions they choose to take on European integration. The group also examines how EU enlargement policy is being modified and adapted to fit the unique and more challenging domestic circumstances of each of the Western Balkan candidates and potential candidates, including problems of territorial legitimacy and state competence.
In addition to cutting edge research, a key component of this working group is a series of workshops geared toward young scholars, practitioners, and policy makers engaged in research on the region. Recent workshop topics have included: “Serbia and the Future of the Balkans: On the Long Road to the EU Democratization” (Fall 2011) and “International Actors in South Eastern Europe” (Spring 2011).
UNC Faculty Coordinator: M. Vachudova (POLI); UNC Graduate Coordinator: B. Ceka (POLI).
This working group examines how and why the structure of authority varies from the EU to other international governmental organizations (IGOs) and how this has changed over time. The research is part of a larger project on the causes and consequences of multilevel governance. While the EU is the most researched setting for reform in the allocation of authority away from central states, it is best understood in a comparative context. International government is a key component in a research program on the structure of government from the local to the global. This working group is motivated by the following questions: 1) How does the structure of authority vary from the EU to other IGOs? 2) How has this changed over time? 3) What are the causes of this variation? The focus of the group is on international organizations in Europe and beyond, that is to say, organizations that exercise the functions of government at the international level.
Activities of the working group include compilation of a time series dataset on international authority from 1950-2010 for 54 international governmental organizations and development of a website facility which will publish the dataset and document coding decisions for each IGO. The research team will also hold a series of conferences and workshops and will disseminate their findings via refereed journal articles and a series of co-edited books.
UNC Faculty Coordinators: L. Hooghe, G. Marks, M. McKeown (POLI). External Partners: VU Amsterdam, FU Berlin, European Research Council.
At a time of historic challenges to the viability of the Eurozone, this working group seeks to examine the contribution of the EU and the Euro to financial market integration across Europe. No region in the world has done more to integrate its economies than Europe, where the EU set out after World War II to free the movement of goods, services, capital, and labor. Although a large body of literature has attempted to assess the degree to which the EU did or did not succeed in integrating markets across member states, research has focused heavily on goods trade, leaving a less thorough understanding of the implications for financial capital.
This research group offers a different approach to the European question by developing a novel metric of global financial integration that employs stock market valuations of similar firms in different countries to evaluate the degree of bilateral integration in Europe and the impact of the EU. Stock market valuations reflect financial integration through their impact on discount rates, as well as economic integration through their impact on capitalized growth opportunities. Integration should lead to “valuation convergence” of similar firms across different countries. Simply put: has the regulatory process towards greater degrees of openness across the European continent yielded a setting in which similar firms are priced similarly regardless of the particular country in which they reside? If not, what are the remaining explicit or implicit barriers? What are the particular channels (capital market openness, the harmonization of financial regulation, etc.) through which financial integration manifests? Lastly, how integrated are the European periphery countries (including potential EU entrants, such as Croatia, Turkey, and others) and what are the potential benefits for these nations? As financial openness and integration has been one of the central objectives of EU policy over the last several decades, an evaluation of evolution of financial integration across this region is important. Further, the working group’s new measurement technology facilitates this exploration.
UNC Faculty Coordinator: C. Lundblad (BUSI). External Partners: G. Bekaert (Columbia Univ./Editor of the Review of Financial Studies), C. Harvey (Duke Univ./Editor of the Journal of Finance), S. Siegel (Univ. of Washington).
The globalization of scholarship in the Humanities and Social Sciences has been one of the most exciting but also one of the most challenging developments in recent years. It has opened up many new possibilities for the investigation of historic and current relationships between different cultures in Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Asia. At the same time, it raises questions about how a more global perspective on the past and present can be developed in light of existing conceptual, methodological, and institutional frameworks. The danger of the increasing emphasis on Transatlantic Studies and Global Studies is that other innovative approaches – like area studies focusing on specific localities or cultural and gender studies – will be pushed aside because they do not analyze the global macro structures of economic, political and social relations, but instead focus on the local or the regional, and explore the national.
This interdisciplinary working group addresses this problem and explores the theme “Gender, Transfer and Transformation of Modernity: Transatlantic Perspectives”. The group studies the invention of the concept of “modernity” at the beginning of the 20th century, as well as the transformation and transfer of this “modernity” in Europe, Africa, and the Americas including the Caribbean. This concept was an invention of Western sociologists, who were the first to organize their research around the concept of “modernization”. It was and is associated with the “taylorism” of industrial production; the “professionalization” of education and the sciences; the emergence of a consumer culture and new mass media like radio, cinema and television; and the “rationalization” of everyday life by family planning, household rationalization and household technology. But it also refers to the extension of political, social, and civil citizenship – first middle and then to working class men, and later to women and “non-whites”– and encompasses transformative social and cultural processes like “secularization” and “urbanization”. A broad spectrum of political groups – liberal, social democratic, socialist, and communist – and anti-colonial and anti-imperial movements also utilized the concept of “modernity” for their aims. Their understandings of the concept differed widely and were shaped by both their specific political agendas and the historical contexts. Others – particularly conservatives and nationalists – vehemently argued against “modernity” and “modernization”, especially in mass culture, but nevertheless continued to attempt to modernize society in their own terms. One extreme example of this paradox of modernity in political discourses and practices and its Janus face is the Third Reich. Thus the understanding of modernity varied in the past widely and was highly contested.
Conceptions of modernity traveled in the 20th century from one country to another and across the Atlantic. They appeared first in Western Europe and North America, but were quickly employed in Eastern Europe and South America, along with other regions of the Atlantic world. However, the meaning of these ideas differed in most countries, as did the policies and everyday practices based on them, because they were shaped by the specific economic, social, political and cultural conditions and the historic traditions in each particular location. Both the discourse of “modernity” and “modern” policies were highly gendered in all countries from the beginning. They were predicated upon the re-shaping and reconfiguring of sexual and gender roles and identities of femininities and masculinities.
The debates about modernity, which were often linked to discussions about cultural crisis and decadence, reveal the anxieties and identity crises inherent in the process of transformation that has been occurring since the mid-nineteenth century. The status of women was frequently used in political discourses as an indicator of “modernity” and the state of “civility” in a society. However, for some the changing status of women was positively linked to “female emancipation”, while for others it revealed the “decay of the family and society”. Thus the gender order and gender relations were one important battlefield in the struggle over defining the dominant meaning of modernity.
Today scholars avoid using the concept of “modernity” as an analytical tool because of its vagueness, its paradoxes, and its teleological implications, i.e. the Seemingly inevitable realization of modernity and progress. Instead they emphasize the necessity of deconstructing and critically analyzing this key term of the 20th century and its history, transnational and transatlantic transfer, and transformation. This is also the goal this interdisciplinary working group, which is meant to bring together interested scholars from UNC Chapel Hill and the Research Triangle Area. The group focuses on the following themes, which are central for the study of gender and modernity from a transatlantic perspective: 1) WAR AND EMPIRE: Gender, Imperialism and Anti-colonial Movements; 2) CIVIL SOCIETY: Gendering Human Rights and Protest; 3) POLITICS AND THE STATE: Gender and Citizenship; 4) WORK: Gendering Labor Markets and Migration; 5) REPRESENTATIONS: Gender, New Media and Mass Culture; 6) CONSUMERISM: Gendering the Consumer Society; 7) THE RATIONALIZATION OF THE BODY: Gender and Sexuality; 8) THE FAMILY: Gender Relations and Private Lives.
UNC Faculty Coordinators: K. Hagemann, D. Reid, C. Bryant (HIST).
In the past decade, the EU’s enlargement project has been paralleled by equally bold foreign policy initiatives to harmonize norms, policies, practices, and perceptions with non-EU neighbors and neighbors-of-neighbors. This working group will host research workshops and accompanying public lecture series focused on the topic of EU border management and migration policy. The research focuses on the role of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) and the Global Approach to Migration (GAM) in shaping the integration model currently being applied in the Euro-Mediterranean region. The working group brings together key scholars and EU officials working on aspects of the recent application of the ENP to the Euro-Med region, particularly dealing with border policy, migration routes management, and EU policy in North Africa. These researchers are interested in the changing logics of border management; Schengen space and failed practices of the walled and policed border; and emerging and complementary EU notions of the border and the migrant. These issues are being framed through and by new institutions (such as Frontex, ICMPD, the Global Approach to Migration) that seek to manage the relationship between the EU and its neighbors through policies such as border externalization, migration routes management, and joint commitments to policing and development. Such new practices, institutions, and spaces have profound implications for how we understand sovereignty, citizenship, and the territorial expression and exercise of rights in the EU and among its neighbors and neighbors-of-neighbors. Specific topics of the working group include: ENP and the global approach to migration, border externalization and transit migration, sovereignty and mobility, territoriality and citizenship, and the Arab Spring.
UNC Faculty Coordinator: J. Pickles (GEOG).
The North Carolina German Studies Seminar and Workshop Series seeks to foster intellectual exchange among students, scholars and the wider community at both public and private institutions of higher learning. The Series intends on opening academic dialogues to the general public of North Carolina in order to raise awareness of the importance of Germany for the cultural literacy of all North Carolinians.
The North Carolina German Studies Seminar and Workshop Series was started in 2007 by an interdisciplinary and inter-institutional group of scholars in the Research Triangle of North Carolina, because the state of North Carolina possesses an incredibly rich and impressive roster of scholars working in German Studies. It is home to nationally and internationally recognized graduate programs in German Studies. Its colleges and universities have incredibly successful undergraduate programs responsible for producing highly proficient speakers and thinkers of Germanic languages and cultures. Our state also boasts an extensive roster of extremely dedicated and talented high school teachers of German. In order to strengthen the bonds between all these precious assets, the North Carolina German Studies Seminar and Workshop Series seeks to foster interdisciplinary and inter-institutional intellectual exchange among students, scholars, and the wider community at both public and private institutions of higher learning. The Series intends on opening academic dialogues to the general public of North Carolina.
UNC Faculty Coordinators: K. Hagemann and K. Jarausch (HIST); Duke Faculty Coordinators: D. Bonker (HIST) and W. Donahue (GERM).
The institutional and cultural foundations of citizenship in European and North American democracies have been analyzed empirically for fifty years. By contrast, the motivations and skills of political leadership have during the same period been neglected by democratic theory and scientific research alike. Evaluations of the character of politicians have become increasingly important in campaigns, elections and governing. Yet, behind the familiar pieties, very little is known about the critical qualities for effective liberal democratic leadership, about the specific character traits by which our politicians ought reasonably to be judged.
In prescribing foundations for good government, theorists like James Madison focused on making good rules rather than good leaders, on constitutions rather than on the character of the politicians who would run them. Yet, as John Stuart Mill argued, without appropriate character traits among politicians, good government will not automatically emerge from even the most carefully constructed constitutions. Ordinary citizens may not know very much about constitutional arrangements, but they have strong views about the character of their political leaders. And their confidence in these leaders has recently fallen further than most observers believed possible. This widespread cynicism about absent virtues and alleged vices enables deception and corruption and is in turn fed by it. Furthermore, the most commonly touted leadership traits, integrity and competence, often turn out on close inspection to be shallow metaphors constructed by image consultants. Others traits are completely overlooked because their recognition requires more knowledge than citizens possess about the essential functions that liberal democratic leaders perform.
This working group brings together an interdisciplinary, international team of scholars to construct, and to publicize widely, convincing evaluative standards for assessing liberal democratic politicians and candidates, standards justified by normative theory and grounded in scientific research. It draws upon political philosophy and social and cognitive psychology and neuroscience to: (a) identify key leadership motivations and skills, (b) investigate their psychological structure and dynamics, (c) explore their origins in pre-career and institutional learning, and (d) examine their consequences for functions that liberal democratic political leaders perform: regime building, governing, accountability and representation. Most of the literature on political leadership has analyzed executives rather than legislatures. Yet many executives emerge from parliaments, which have an independent importance of their own, and which are the institutional settings that enable, constrain and modify the key motivations and skills that politicians bring to them. This unique British data set is ideally suited for generating and probing the theory, concepts and practical criteria that are needed.
The working group’s findings are being disseminated through a variety of sources including: a book on the most important character traits, professional articles in both political science and social psychology, and through articles in popular magazines and newspapers where the goal is to give the public tools for evaluating leaders effectively. The group also offers outreach seminars for local political parties and constituency associations who are the gatekeepers of political recruitment.
UNC Faculty Coordinators: D. Searing and P. Conover (POLI), M. Green (PSYC). External Partners: M. Russell (Univ. College London), O. Rozenberg (Sciences Po, Paris), M. Steenbergen (Univ. of Zurich).
This multi-disciplinary working group addresses the topic of the “politics of the body” in the context of contemporary Europe, privileging the southern borders of Europe, with a focus on Mediterranean Europe and immigration. The presupposition of the project is that the current global fluxes of capital and goods are accompanied by an intensification of policies and representations specifically aimed at the bodies of the subjects who move, work, and reside in Europe. As it has been shown by contemporary studies on “biopolitics,” advanced capitalism is increasingly targeting–through marketing, medical, and policing activities–the corporeal nature of human beings. Since these phenomena are most visible and acute at the borders of Europe, where biopolitical processes are intersecting new spaces and practices of detention of migrants, the working group targets the Southern borders of France, Italy, and Spain, exploring their bodily topography. It does so by following a multi-disciplinary method, using both visual representations–cinema in particular–and the concepts elaborated by contemporary biopolitics. These fields do in fact provide useful descriptions of the current convergence of bodies and politics, and can be fruitfully explored comparatively in order to understand phenomena which are hard to be grasped within the limits of a single discipline.
The research project builds on existing initiatives promoted by UNC-Chapel Hill faculty, such as the UNC Interdisciplinary Minor in Global Film Studies, the UNC Dual BA-MA in French and Francophone Studies, the UNC Dual BA-MA in Franco-Arab Studies, and the Carolina Lectures in Critical Thought. Given its multi-disciplinary nature, the research project attracts a wide range of students and faculty, such as those currently involved in the EURO major, the Curriculum in Global Studies, Films Studies, and Cultural Studies. The working group is composed of more than twenty faculty members, graduate students, and advanced undergraduate students from various departments and programs who meet once a month and develop the research topic “Politics of the body in the EU.” The working group’s activities include: a discussion group, a public film series, a two year lecture series, and an international conference on “Biopolitics at the Edges of Europe.” The research team will also organize outreach workshops in North Carolina (high schools and colleges) and involve the larger community.
UNC Faculty Coordinators: M. Antle and F. Luisetti (ROML), R. Cante (COMM). External Partners: R. Esposito at the Istituto Italiano di Scienze Umane (Florence and Naples, Italy).
One element of the EU’s Lisbon Strategy has been to complement the promotion of employment and human capital development with policies aimed at reducing poverty and social exclusion. The World Bank has been promoting a similar package of policies for developing countries, and the United Nations’ Millennium Goals likewise focus on eradicating poverty and social exclusion. This working group builds on the work that our social policy working group conducted by our previous social policy working groups. In collaboration with the Graduate School in Social, Economic, and Political Sciences at the University of Milan, this research group will organize a series of workshops focusing on social policies designed to deal with social exclusion in countries where large proportions of the population work in the informal or black market sector and are therefore not covered by contributory social insurance. The first two workshops were held at UNC-Chapel Hill and the Collegio Carlo Alberto in Turin, Italy, and focused on comparing the social inclusion policies of the Southern European countries (Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal) with the more advanced Latin American social policy regimes (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Costa Rica).
In light of the recent literature on “dualization” of continental European social policy regimes – that is, the development of dual labor markets of insiders and outsiders with different social policies serving these labor market segments – the working group has broadened the range of European countries covered to include the UK, France, Germany, and Sweden. The most recent social policy workshop took place in Italy in fall 2012 and will resulted in an edited volume presenting the findings of the four-year research program, with chapters on the UK, France, Germany, and Sweden, Italy, Spain, Uruguay-Chile, Brazil, and Argentina. Among other activities of the working group was participation in several workshops on the “Transformations of the State,” which will result in an edited volume, The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State, to be published in 2014 by Oxford University Press. The edited volume is part of increasingly deep collaboration between the UNC Center for European Studies and Bremen University social sciences. Two back to back workshops were held at the Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg in Delmenhorst, Germany (Transformations of the State, Nov. 2011) and at UNC-Chapel Hill (Transformations of the State, Feb. 2012). In Fall 2013, the working group will host a conference on the Political Economy of Skills and Inequality. This is follow up conference to a mini conference on held in conjunction with the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics meetings in Milan (June 2013). It will result in a special issue of Socio-Economic Review to which will appear in April 2014.
UNC Faculty Coordinators: E. Huber, J. Stephens (POLI/CES). External Partners: NEED TO ADD.
This working group builds on a burgeoning partnership between UNC-Chapel Hill and King’s College, London, partnership agreement. The group explores various themes related to travel and place in the 18th and 19th centuries though a series of international conferences. The conferences think “globally,” but the questions that animate the papers draw directly from themes drawn from European history such as the rise of the nation-state, imperialism, and accelerated movement of peoples within Europe and around the world. These questions—and the knowledge gained by asking them – contribute to several fields of European history while shedding new light on the legacies of European dominance and the various webs that continue to link Europe to the rest of the world.
UNC Faculty Coordinators: C. Bryant and C. Radding (HIST). King’s College London Partners: P. Readman and J. Bjork (HIST).
Acknowledgement of support: Funding for these working groups is provided in part by the European Union and the US Department of Education. CES is grateful to the additional sponsors who contribute to the activities and success of these groups.