Pub Date : 2022-08-10DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2022.2111418
L. Schramm, W. Wessels
ABSTRACT As with previous crises, the European Union’s (EU) reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic has again highlighted the European Council’s pivotal role in the EU’s institutional architecture and development. In creating the ‘Next Generation EU’ recovery package in July 2020, it provided the Union’s main instrument for coping with economic damage resulting from the pandemic. In both the run-up to and aftermath of this history-making decision, the European Council acted as the driver of a horizontal and vertical fusion of responsibilities: horizontally, it instructed and partly relied on other EU institutions; vertically, it satisfied and further developed close links between the EU and national levels of government. Scrutinising the different phases of a policymaking cycle (preparation, decision, implementation, control), this article highlights and puts into perspective the European Council’s key activities at each stage.
{"title":"The European Council as a crisis manager and fusion driver: assessing the EU’s fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"L. Schramm, W. Wessels","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2022.2111418","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2111418","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As with previous crises, the European Union’s (EU) reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic has again highlighted the European Council’s pivotal role in the EU’s institutional architecture and development. In creating the ‘Next Generation EU’ recovery package in July 2020, it provided the Union’s main instrument for coping with economic damage resulting from the pandemic. In both the run-up to and aftermath of this history-making decision, the European Council acted as the driver of a horizontal and vertical fusion of responsibilities: horizontally, it instructed and partly relied on other EU institutions; vertically, it satisfied and further developed close links between the EU and national levels of government. Scrutinising the different phases of a policymaking cycle (preparation, decision, implementation, control), this article highlights and puts into perspective the European Council’s key activities at each stage.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"45 1","pages":"257 - 273"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49441543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-09DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2022.2102616
Siba Harb, P. Vandamme
ABSTRACT This article offers an original political theory perspective on debates about EU integration and EU justice by discussing possible tensions with the demands of global justice. In particular, it asks whether global egalitarians can consistently argue for further European integration and for an egalitarian EU while maintaining that the scope of egalitarian justice should be global. After highlighting several tensions between EU equality and EU integration on the one hand, and global justice, on the other hand, it explores strategies available to global egalitarians to defend the focus on the EU. It concludes that global egalitarians can only have instrumental reasons to value the EU, and not any EU, nor merely a just EU; only the most instrumental to the realization of global justice, which can lead to different conclusions on EU integration or EU justice from the standardly assumed ones.
{"title":"An egalitarian fortress? Global distributive justice and the EU","authors":"Siba Harb, P. Vandamme","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2022.2102616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2102616","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article offers an original political theory perspective on debates about EU integration and EU justice by discussing possible tensions with the demands of global justice. In particular, it asks whether global egalitarians can consistently argue for further European integration and for an egalitarian EU while maintaining that the scope of egalitarian justice should be global. After highlighting several tensions between EU equality and EU integration on the one hand, and global justice, on the other hand, it explores strategies available to global egalitarians to defend the focus on the EU. It concludes that global egalitarians can only have instrumental reasons to value the EU, and not any EU, nor merely a just EU; only the most instrumental to the realization of global justice, which can lead to different conclusions on EU integration or EU justice from the standardly assumed ones.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"45 1","pages":"577 - 592"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41391645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-07DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2022.2109651
Marco Siddi
ABSTRACT Between 2014 and 2021, the EU’s relationship with Russia oscillated between the ever more elusive quest for a mutually acceptable geopolitical balance and increasing conflict. The conflict focused primarily on the future of Ukraine . Three new books analyse essential parts of this conundrum: the changing nature of the EU’s power in the context of the Ukraine conflict, the long-standing EU-Russia business and energy relationship, and the self-image and external perceptions of EU foreign policy towards Ukraine. While written before the 2022 war, the books remain highly relevant because they dissect an ongoing process of changing EU actorness in its Eastern neighbourhood. In order to analyse the path to the 2022 war and its aftermath, future research must expand on this scholarship by enlarging the spectrum of theoretical approaches while navigating the new constraints that the war and the ensuing tense policy debates have put on empirical work.
{"title":"The partnership that failed: EU-Russia relations and the war in Ukraine","authors":"Marco Siddi","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2022.2109651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2109651","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Between 2014 and 2021, the EU’s relationship with Russia oscillated between the ever more elusive quest for a mutually acceptable geopolitical balance and increasing conflict. The conflict focused primarily on the future of Ukraine . Three new books analyse essential parts of this conundrum: the changing nature of the EU’s power in the context of the Ukraine conflict, the long-standing EU-Russia business and energy relationship, and the self-image and external perceptions of EU foreign policy towards Ukraine. While written before the 2022 war, the books remain highly relevant because they dissect an ongoing process of changing EU actorness in its Eastern neighbourhood. In order to analyse the path to the 2022 war and its aftermath, future research must expand on this scholarship by enlarging the spectrum of theoretical approaches while navigating the new constraints that the war and the ensuing tense policy debates have put on empirical work.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"44 1","pages":"893 - 898"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42089695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-29DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2022.2102166
Federico Alagna
ABSTRACT The 2020 New Pact on Migration and Asylum confirmed the continuity of the EU and its Member States’ largely repressive approach to migrant smuggling. Over the last few years, evidence-based inputs coming from the local level – and particularly from actors responsible for the implementation of anti-smuggling measures – have led to the assessment and review of the related EU penal framework. Yet, notwithstanding the emergence of several critical elements, calling for a re-definition of such framework – such as migrants accused of being smugglers and the criminalisation of humanitarian actors –, policy outputs have not altered the existing legislation. By disclosing the interactions between policy-makers, in a bottom-up perspective, this article explores the role of evidence in the (failed) reform of the EU framework, with a view to contributing to a new institutionalist understanding of the EU politics of evidence-based migration policy-making.
{"title":"So much promise, so little delivery: evidence-based policy-making in the EU approach to migrant smuggling","authors":"Federico Alagna","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2022.2102166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2102166","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The 2020 New Pact on Migration and Asylum confirmed the continuity of the EU and its Member States’ largely repressive approach to migrant smuggling. Over the last few years, evidence-based inputs coming from the local level – and particularly from actors responsible for the implementation of anti-smuggling measures – have led to the assessment and review of the related EU penal framework. Yet, notwithstanding the emergence of several critical elements, calling for a re-definition of such framework – such as migrants accused of being smugglers and the criminalisation of humanitarian actors –, policy outputs have not altered the existing legislation. By disclosing the interactions between policy-makers, in a bottom-up perspective, this article explores the role of evidence in the (failed) reform of the EU framework, with a view to contributing to a new institutionalist understanding of the EU politics of evidence-based migration policy-making.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"45 1","pages":"309 - 325"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59768468","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-27DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2022.2101646
Sevasti Chatzopoulou, C. Ansell
ABSTRACT The paper investigates how the EU operates as a strategic entrepreneur in different contexts and what enables the EU to do so. We develop a synthetic and dynamic approach linking the EU’s internal characteristics with its internal and external strategies and actions, which we envision as an internal-external-internal cycle that advances European integration. First, we discuss the EU’s distinctive internal governance characteristics. Second, we demonstrate how these characteristics condition and support the EU as a strategic entrepreneur in external affairs. Third, we investigate how external perceptions and legitimacy can feedback to reinforce the EU’s (re) construction of its own internal strategies. External legitimacy pushes the EU to ascertain appropriate and accepted behaviour and strengthen institutional and policy integration, expanding the EU’s competences over more policy areas.
{"title":"The construction of the EU as a strategic entrepreneur:the internal-external-internal nexus","authors":"Sevasti Chatzopoulou, C. Ansell","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2022.2101646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2101646","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper investigates how the EU operates as a strategic entrepreneur in different contexts and what enables the EU to do so. We develop a synthetic and dynamic approach linking the EU’s internal characteristics with its internal and external strategies and actions, which we envision as an internal-external-internal cycle that advances European integration. First, we discuss the EU’s distinctive internal governance characteristics. Second, we demonstrate how these characteristics condition and support the EU as a strategic entrepreneur in external affairs. Third, we investigate how external perceptions and legitimacy can feedback to reinforce the EU’s (re) construction of its own internal strategies. External legitimacy pushes the EU to ascertain appropriate and accepted behaviour and strengthen institutional and policy integration, expanding the EU’s competences over more policy areas.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"45 1","pages":"275 - 292"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46500570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-19DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2022.2101048
Tobias C. Hofelich
ABSTRACT Although there are various legal tools to make European integration more flexible, the EU and its member states uphold long-term arrangements of de facto differentiation circumventing EU law. This article assesses their role in the EU’s system of differentiated integration. To that end, it advances a model based on rational choice theory, outlining the steps and conditions under which tolerated arrangements of de facto differentiation can emerge. This is illustrated in three case studies in Economic and Monetary Union (EMU): (1) Sweden’s de facto opt-out from EMU; (2) Kosovo’s adoption of the euro as sole legal tender, and (3) the Fiscal Compact. Data was gathered via document analysis and 11 expert interviews. The article concludes that de facto differentiation may constitute a viable alternative and useful means to make EU integration more flexible if strong national demand for differentiation meets the need for discretion or timely, pragmatic action.
{"title":"De facto differentiation in the EU’s economic and monetary union - A rationalist explanation","authors":"Tobias C. Hofelich","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2022.2101048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2101048","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although there are various legal tools to make European integration more flexible, the EU and its member states uphold long-term arrangements of de facto differentiation circumventing EU law. This article assesses their role in the EU’s system of differentiated integration. To that end, it advances a model based on rational choice theory, outlining the steps and conditions under which tolerated arrangements of de facto differentiation can emerge. This is illustrated in three case studies in Economic and Monetary Union (EMU): (1) Sweden’s de facto opt-out from EMU; (2) Kosovo’s adoption of the euro as sole legal tender, and (3) the Fiscal Compact. Data was gathered via document analysis and 11 expert interviews. The article concludes that de facto differentiation may constitute a viable alternative and useful means to make EU integration more flexible if strong national demand for differentiation meets the need for discretion or timely, pragmatic action.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"44 1","pages":"1113 - 1129"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42765344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2022.2072838
Julia Kreienkamp, T. Pegram, D. Coen
ABSTRACT The EU's ambition to lead in global climate governance has shaped its engagement with the UNFCCC regime and informed a vast body of regulatory instruments. However, EU climate policy outcomes have not always matched aspirations. We explore how UNFCCC-EU institutional interactions have shaped EU climate policy outcomes by combining a multilevel governance perspective with scholarship on policy entrepreneurship to explain when, why, and how motivated policy entrepreneurs are most likely to secure transformative policy change. We contrast the successful policy transformation of the European Green Deal with the experience of policy stagnation in the aftermath of the economic crisis, shedding light on the interaction between problems, policies, and politics across levels. We find that while the international level is significant in opening up windows of opportunity from above, the presence below of an authoritative and motivated policy entrepreneur within the political stream is a crucial additive to securing transformative policy change.
{"title":"Explaining transformative change in EU climate policy: multilevel problems, policies, and politics","authors":"Julia Kreienkamp, T. Pegram, D. Coen","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2022.2072838","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2072838","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The EU's ambition to lead in global climate governance has shaped its engagement with the UNFCCC regime and informed a vast body of regulatory instruments. However, EU climate policy outcomes have not always matched aspirations. We explore how UNFCCC-EU institutional interactions have shaped EU climate policy outcomes by combining a multilevel governance perspective with scholarship on policy entrepreneurship to explain when, why, and how motivated policy entrepreneurs are most likely to secure transformative policy change. We contrast the successful policy transformation of the European Green Deal with the experience of policy stagnation in the aftermath of the economic crisis, shedding light on the interaction between problems, policies, and politics across levels. We find that while the international level is significant in opening up windows of opportunity from above, the presence below of an authoritative and motivated policy entrepreneur within the political stream is a crucial additive to securing transformative policy change.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"44 1","pages":"731 - 748"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43456037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2022.2075860
Tomer Broude, Yoram Z. Haftel
ABSTRACT Foreign investment is governed by thousands of international investment agreements (IIAs), many of which include investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions. Member states have played a prominent role in the evolution and shape of this decentralized global investment regime. The EU itself has become an actor in this regime since gaining competence in this area in 2009. This article examines the manners by which investment policies of the EU and its member states have evolved over time and their implications for the EU’s actorness. Using, first, the concept and metric of state regulatory space, we show that the EU is more enthusiastic than its member states about reforms, but that a lack of internal cohesiveness and a competitive external environment limit its actorness. Second, drawing on recent discussions on ISDS reforms, we highlight the increasing ability of the EU to speak up with one voice on global investment rules.
{"title":"The growing pains of actorness: the European Union in global investment governance","authors":"Tomer Broude, Yoram Z. Haftel","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2022.2075860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2075860","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Foreign investment is governed by thousands of international investment agreements (IIAs), many of which include investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions. Member states have played a prominent role in the evolution and shape of this decentralized global investment regime. The EU itself has become an actor in this regime since gaining competence in this area in 2009. This article examines the manners by which investment policies of the EU and its member states have evolved over time and their implications for the EU’s actorness. Using, first, the concept and metric of state regulatory space, we show that the EU is more enthusiastic than its member states about reforms, but that a lack of internal cohesiveness and a competitive external environment limit its actorness. Second, drawing on recent discussions on ISDS reforms, we highlight the increasing ability of the EU to speak up with one voice on global investment rules.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"44 1","pages":"749 - 768"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47580546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2022.2080819
A. Marx, Oliver Westerwinter
ABSTRACT Contemporary global governance is characterized by a diversity of institutions. The European Union (EU) interacts with these institutions in multiple ways. Despite their importance, the interactions of the EU with different types of global governance institutions have remained underexplored in EU scholarship. The papers in this special issue address this research gap. They map the EU’s interactions with different types of global governance institutions. They also explore the factors that explain patterns of interactions. In this introduction, we develop a common analytical lens that unites the contributions to the special issue and identify our main research questions. We map different types of global governance institutions and discuss the ways in which the EU interacts with them. We also bring together the main insights from the individual contributions and discuss avenues for future research.
{"title":"An ever more entangled Union? The European Union’s interactions with global governance institutions","authors":"A. Marx, Oliver Westerwinter","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2022.2080819","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2080819","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Contemporary global governance is characterized by a diversity of institutions. The European Union (EU) interacts with these institutions in multiple ways. Despite their importance, the interactions of the EU with different types of global governance institutions have remained underexplored in EU scholarship. The papers in this special issue address this research gap. They map the EU’s interactions with different types of global governance institutions. They also explore the factors that explain patterns of interactions. In this introduction, we develop a common analytical lens that unites the contributions to the special issue and identify our main research questions. We map different types of global governance institutions and discuss the ways in which the EU interacts with them. We also bring together the main insights from the individual contributions and discuss avenues for future research.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"44 1","pages":"597 - 615"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48544139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2022.2074982
Á. Saz-Carranza, Marie Vandendriessche, J. Nguyen, N. Agell
ABSTRACT Interactions between the EU and IGOs ˗ such as joint statements, verbal public disagreements, formal cooperation agreements, and IGO dispute resolution involving the EU ˗ have increased in the past decades. We address the question What determines the EU’s interactions with formal IGOs? by carrying out a big data-based sentiment analysis of all news published online between 1999 and 2017. Using over 30,000 events machine-coded by the Global Data Event Language and Tone (GDELT) database, we construct an annual measure for the dyadic relations between the EU and 36 formal IGOs. We find that when the EU has observer or member status in an IGO, this significantly and positively affects the quantity of interactions, while increasing the level of conflict in these interactions. Policy overlap between the EU and the IGO also increases the level of conflict in their interactions. Surprisingly, IGO authority is not relevant for these interactions.
{"title":"The EU’s interactions with formal intergovernmental organizations: a big data analysis of news media","authors":"Á. Saz-Carranza, Marie Vandendriessche, J. Nguyen, N. Agell","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2022.2074982","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2074982","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Interactions between the EU and IGOs ˗ such as joint statements, verbal public disagreements, formal cooperation agreements, and IGO dispute resolution involving the EU ˗ have increased in the past decades. We address the question What determines the EU’s interactions with formal IGOs? by carrying out a big data-based sentiment analysis of all news published online between 1999 and 2017. Using over 30,000 events machine-coded by the Global Data Event Language and Tone (GDELT) database, we construct an annual measure for the dyadic relations between the EU and 36 formal IGOs. We find that when the EU has observer or member status in an IGO, this significantly and positively affects the quantity of interactions, while increasing the level of conflict in these interactions. Policy overlap between the EU and the IGO also increases the level of conflict in their interactions. Surprisingly, IGO authority is not relevant for these interactions.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"44 1","pages":"635 - 655"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44279652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：