Giandomenico Majone Prize



Seventh Giandomenico Majone Prize

 The 2021 Giandomenico Majone Prize for best paper at the conference was presented to Jose Maria Valenzuela, University of Oxford, for the paper "System operators and regulatory governance for the rapid decarbonisation of electricity systems: a state-business configuration perspective". The Majone Prize Committee was chaired by Ulrika Mörth and comprised Ulrika Mörth, Martin Lodge, Alessia Damonte and Koen Verhoest. The citation of the Committee: "The paper adv ances our understanding of regime dynamics on different national experiences, regulatory structures and legacies in the governance of electricity systems, and how governments can overcome the government's dilemma by mechanisms of reconfiguration of state-business regulations. The paper addresses a highly important and clear research problem and makes a convincing argument for how the study contributes to previous research on electricity governance The paper includes an extensive discussion of country cases and offers rich insights into state-business configurations in four different systems."   



Sixth Giandomenico Majone Prize 


Janina GrabsThe 2018 Giandomenico Majone Prize for the best conference paper written by a junior scholar was handed out at the ECPR Regulatory Governance section meeting in Lausanne. The prize committee consisted of Graeme Hodges, Anne Meuwese and Colin Provost. The committee read nine submitted papers and was impressed by the high quality of each of them. Some papers focused more exclusively on their theoretical contribution, while others emphasized the novel and innovative methodologies employed. All the papers dealt with important questions of regulatory governance.


Ultimately, the committee reached a unanimous decision to award the prize to: “The Effectiveness of Private Sustainability Governance: A Micro-Institutional Approach” written by Janina Grabs, PhD candidate and research associate at the Institute of Political Science of the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. Members of the committee agreed that the paper posed important questions on the effectiveness of private regulatory governance; the data collection effort was vast, yet conducted with precision and care; the methods were rigorous and the paper had a high level of real-world applicability, given the direct questions on regulatory compliance and effectiveness. “Consequently, the paper makes a strong theoretical contribution to the broad field of regulatory governance and we are happy to award it the 2018 Majone Prize!”



Fifth Giandomenico Majone Prize


The jury has assessed the submissions on the basis of their academic merit, including the relevance and development of the research question, the contribution that the article makes to existing scientific knowledge or theory in the field of regulatory governance, the use of sources, the methodological rigour, the quality of the analysis and the conclusions. On the basis of this assessment the jury has unanimously decided to award the 2016 Majone Prize to Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov, for the paper "Temporary Legislation, Better Regulation and Experimentalist Governance: An Empirical Study". Special mention should go to the paper by Karen Lee entitled "Procedural and Institutional Legitimacy in the New Regulatory State".


The winning paper is an outstanding contribution on the use of temporary legislation. The paper sits at the intersection of regulation and legislative studies, and the literature review is embedded in different disciplines. It presents a new data set on temporary legislation that enriches our understanding of an important phenomenon we have so far limited knowledge of. Temporary legislation, or ‘sunset’ legislation, has been the subject of legal research but has not been subject to empirical study. The paper therefore is an important contribution to our understanding of the trend.


The findings demonstrate the relevance of temporary legislation (share in legislation is growing) but at the same time challenge the promise that temporary legislation can be a form of experimental policy making. Rather, temporary legislation seems to be a functional solution to challenges of law making (rendering adoption on controversial issues or responses to crisis possible). 

The jury is impressed by the thorough descriptive analysis, the rich new data and the thorough research design informing the paper. It should be publishable with some minor improvements.


Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov, the winner of the 3rd Giandomenico Majone Prize, and professor Vanessa Maak

Karen Lee’s paper deserves a special mention. Hers is a well-crafted paper that asks whether we can judge industry rule making by similar means as legislative rule making by government. The question is addressed by a theoretically inspiring juxtaposition of responsiveness that improves efficiency (regulatory scholars) and procedural and institutional legitimacy (rule of law). The strength of the paper lies in developing thoroughly the underlying rationales of the procedural and institutional legitimacy (transparency, impartiality, deliberation and accountability) in order to derive mechanistic implications that are in principle observable in industry governance, too.



Fourth Giandomenico Majone Prize


The 4th Giandomenico Majone Prize for best conference paper was awarded to Stratos Patrikios and Fabrizio De Francesco for their paper 'Churches as firms'. The Award Committee was composed of Prof. Dr. Jarle Trondal (Chair, Professor in public administration at University of Agder and Professor of European Studies at ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo), Prof. Dr. Linda Senden (Professor in International and European Law, University of Utrecht, and co-director of the Law Department research programme and Centre on 'Shared Regulation and Enforcement in Europe' (RENFORCE)), Prof. Dr. Ioannis Papadopoulos (Professor in Political Science at the University of Lausanne) and Dr. Clair Dunlop (Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, University of Exeter).


The awarded paper discusses and empirically assesses whether regulatory institutions control religious and secular markets differently. The paper finds that among the most developed countries, the extent of religious regulation closely mirrors the extent of business regulation. The paper concludes that the choices facing regulatory institutions are not differentiated by sector or markets. These findings increase our understanding of isomorphic processes in regulatory institutions and it is applied to a novel case.


The Prize committee thinks the paper merit by being innovative in its research question and case selection, and that findings from the paper gain new perspectives to regulatory theories. The paper is also clear and straight forward in terms of formulation of research questions and overall focus.


Third Giandomenico Majone Prize


The 3rd Giandomenico Majone Prize for best conference paper was awarded during the Fourth Biennial Standing Group Conference in Exeter on 28 June 2012. The Award Committee was composed of Koen Verhoest, University of Antwerp & University of Leuven (Chair), Prof. Colin Scott, (University College Dublin), Prof. dr. Annetje Ottow, (University of Utrecht), and Dr. Martino Maggetti, (University of Zurich & University of Lausanne) and is balanced in terms of members coming from different disciplines (Law, Political Sciences, and Public Administration), being at different stages in their careers and in terms of gender. The Award Committee got 17 submissions and score the papers on the following criteria: Originality; Relationship to literature; Methodology and theory, (conceptualization, measurement and analysis); Soundness of results; Implications for research, practice and/or society; Quality of Communication. Within the papers submitted, about six papers had a very strong quality, with three papers being outstanding. The selection of the Award winner was therefore not an easy task, because the three best papers differed substantially in their main focus (being theoretical, conceptual-empirical and/or comparative).


The prize committee decided to give the prize for the best conference paper to Dr. Kristian Krieger from the Department of War Studies at the King's College London for his paper "Norms, structures, procedures and variety in risk-based governance: the case of flood management in Germany and England". Among the nominated papers and also within the last three shortlisted papers, the paper scores best overall on the criteria mentioned above. In this paper Krieger challenges the assumption that risk-based governance is universally and uniformly applied in developed countries by comparing contemporary flood management in Germany and England. Drawing on in-depth empirical research, however, this paper shows how the role, influence, and even definition of `risk' is institutionally shaped within the institutional environments of the German and English flood management. In particular, the use and conceptualisations of risk in governance are variously promoted, filtered or constrained by the administrative structures, norms, and political and cultural expectations that are embedded within the flood management and the wider polities of each country.


Dr Kristian Krieger, the winner of the 3rd Giandomenico Majone Prize inbetween two members of the Award Committee (Koen Verhoest and Martino Maggetti).

Dr Kristian Krieger, the winner of the 3rd Giandomenico Majone Prize inbetween two members of the Award Committee (Koen Verhoest and Martino Maggetti).


In that perspective the paper combines a clear comparative approach, conceptualizing, describing and explaining different understandings and manifestations of risk-based flood management in two different politico-administrative systems in a very clear and well-written style. Being methodologically sound, the research was based on extensive document analysis and 48 interviews in both countries with a broad range of actors. The paper is sharp in describing differences, as well as similarities and in explaining them with broader institutional variables, like norms, culture, procedural features and state structure. In an even globalizing world which is more and more confronted with natural disasters and which the scarcity of resources pressurized for risk-based governance mechanisms, it is highly relevant to understand how governments with different norms, cultures and structures understand and perceive risks and risk management.


Dr Kristian Krieger is a Research Associate in the Department of War Studies, working on EU-FP7 project PRACTICE (Preparedness and Resilience against CBRN terrorism using integrated concepts and equipment). Before joining the Department of War Studies at King's, Kristian completed his M.Sc. in International Political Economy at the LSE and a German Diplom in Political Science with Law and Economics at the University of Leipzig. After his degrees, he worked as a Research Assistant at the King's Centre for Risk Management (KCRM) where he was involved in several projects concerned with risk perception and communication in the energy sector and the terrorism field. Following this research work, he undertook his ESRC-sponsored PhD project (Putting risk-based governance into institutional context: Flood management regimes in Germany and England in the 1990s and 2000s) at KCL's Department of Geography. In this, he explored the institutional determinants of different national styles of risk-based governance, thereby challenging assumptions of a uniform rise and colonisation of public policy areas through risk instruments. Kristian also was a visiting researcher at the Environmental Policy Research Centre (FFU) at the Free University Berlin in 2008 and is a Fellow of the Earth System Governance Network.


However, although the paper of Krieger was strongest on all aspects, we want to pay tribute to the two other papers which were shortlisted for the Majone Prize. We want to give them an honourable mention (although this is not in the procedures of the Majone Prize award) because they both have each in their own way good contributions to make to our field and they are both worth it to have your attention drawn to them. One of these two papers with honourable mention is the paper to be presented by Dr. Murray Petrie (Senior Associate, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand ) with the title "Jurisdictional Integration: A Framework for Measuring and Predicting the Depth of International Regulatory Cooperation in Competition Policy". The paper is very original and strong in its development of new ways to measure international regulatory cooperation, in a way which can be replicated in other sectors than competition policy. Moreover, using a database of 92 agreements the author shows the applicability of the measurement for describing and explaining the depth of international regulatory cooperation , or to use the measurement as explanatory factor. With this paper the author makes a clear contribution to the literature in the field of regulatory cooperation.


A second paper which should be given an honourable mention is the theoretical paper of Giacomo Luchetta (PhD Student in Law and Economics, LUISS University (Rome); Researcher for the Regulatory Affairs Programme, Centre for European Policy Studies (Brussels) and Sven Höppner, Research Fellow at the Centre for Advanced Studies in Law and Economics, Gent University Law School (Gent). The paper with the title "Praising their own wine. EU legislators and non-falsifiable statements in impact assessments" theorizes why EU parliament accept non-falsifiable statements in regulatory impact assessments, prepared by the Commission. The authors focus on principal agency theory and transaction cost theory, but the most innovative part of the paper is that they also use social-psychological theories and behavioural economics to explain the lack of retaliation of EU legislators. In that sense they help to strengthen theories in an often undertheorized field, opening up new ways for empirical enquiries.


Dr. Murray Pettrie, Mr. Sven Höppner and Mr. Giacomo Luchetta, the paper givers of both papers with honourable mention in between two members of the Award Committee (Koen Verhoest and Martino Maggetti).

Dr. Murray Pettrie, Mr. Sven Höppner and Mr. Giacomo Luchetta, the paper givers of both papers with honourable mention in between two members of the Award Committee (Koen Verhoest and Martino Maggetti).


Consult the conditions for the Third Giandomenico Majone Prize.


Second Giandomenico Majone Prize


The Standing Group on Regulatory Governance of the European Consortium for Political Research awarded its second Giandomenico Majone Prize to Hanan Haber (The Federmann School of Public Policy and Government, Hebrew University of Jerusalem) during its third biennial Conference held at the University College in Dublin in June 17-19, 2010 for his paper entitled "Regulating-for-welfare: A Comparative Study of 'Regulatory Welfare Regimes' in the Israeli, British and Swedish Electricity Sectors".

The Prize is in honour of Giandomenico Majone for his outstanding contribution for the study of regulatory governance in the European Union and well beyond it. This award recognises outstanding research by scholars in early stages of her or his career in the field of regulatory governance from all relevant disciplinary backgrounds. The Prize is limited to scholars having completed their PhD no more than seven years before the deadline for submission.


The prize commetee, composed of Prof. Per Lægreid (University of Bergen) Chair, Prof. Bronwen Morgan (University of Bristol) and Prof. Kutsal Yesilkagit (University of Utrecht) decided to award the prize to the paper presented by Hanan Haber from the School of Public Policy at the Hebrew University Jerusalem for the paper "Regulating for welfare: A Comparative study of Regulatory Welfare regimes in the Israeli, British and Swedish Electricity Sectors".


Among the nominated papers, this one scores best over all on theoretical, methodological and empirical issues. In this paper Haber addresses the impact of the state's welfare policy tradition on the design of new regulatory regimes and on the emergence of what the author calls "regulatory welfare regimes". It is a well-written paper that is assured in its conceptions of what it is contributing. It is coherent and well integrated with a well-thought design. Above all it is comparative. Haber has a good command of relevant literature and carries out a well done theoretical informed analysis. He integrates welfare state theory in really interesting ways with the regulatory capitalism literature and uses comparative case studies to good effect to support the argument. The finding is interesting and somewhat surprising. The paper is a promising line of research that presents an important contribution to the regulatory governance research.


Hanan Haber is a Doctoral student in the school of Public Policy in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and serves as a teaching assistant in the school's introductory MA courses on theories and issues of public policy. Hanan received a BA in History and in the AMIRIM honors program in the humanities, and an MA in Public Policy (both Cum Laude) from the Hebrew University. In the last several years Hanan served on the organizing committee for the annual graduate student conference in honor of Yitzhak Rabin held at the Hebrew University, and is an editorial assistant for Regulation & Governance.


Per Lægreid, Prize Winner Hanan Haber, Bronwen Morgan and Kutsal Yesilkagit.

From left to right: Per Lægreid, Prize Winner Hanan Haber, Bronwen Morgan and Kutsal Yesilkagit.


Paper abstract: The regulatory state and the welfare state are two institutions which seldom meet. The regulatory state is seen as focused on market failures and trust-busting, while the welfare state is said to shield citizens from the negative redistributive effects and externalities of the market. This paper explores the relations and boundaries between the welfare state and the regulatory state in the electricity sectors in the UK, Sweden and Israel. It demonstrates the emergence of social policy in a place where such policy should, according to conventional wisdom, not exist at all: within the context of liberalised, privatized and (de)regulated electricity sectors. This paper finds that the boundaries between the regulatory state and the welfare state are blurred in the two countries with liberal welfare regimes (Israel and Britain), but not under the social democratic regime of Sweden. The implications of these findings are then discussed with the aim to better understand the limits of the neoliberal project.


First Giandomenico Majone Prize awarded


The Standing Group on Regulatory Governance of the European Consortium for Political Research awarded its first Giandomenico Majone Prize to Dr John Mikler (University of Sydney) during its second biennial Conference held at University Utrecht in June 5-7, 2008 for his paper entitled "Domestic Liberalisation as Global Regulation: the Cases of Fuel Economy and Online Gambling Regulations".


The Prize is in honour of Giandomenico Majone for his outstanding contribution for the study of regulatory governance in the European Union and well beyond it. This award recognises outstanding research by scholars in early stages of her or his career in the field of regulatory governance from all relevant disciplinary backgrounds. The Prize is limited to scholars having completed their PhD no more than seven years before the deadline for submission.


The Prize committee, composed of Prof. Claudio Radaelli (University of Exeter), Chair, Prof. Markus Haverland (Erasmus University) and Prof. Jarle Trondal (University of Oslo) decided to award the first prize to the paper presented by Dr. John Mikler considering that the paper "proposes a fresh and original approach to the theme of the conference, criticising some blunt statements made by political scientists on the advent of 'neoliberalism' and 'globalisation'. Blending different theoretical inspirations, Dr John Mikler provides evidence from two great case studies to support his arguments". The prize committee found that this paper makes the most ambitious 13 claims and is by far the most exciting among those submitted for the Majone prize in terms of blending theory and empirical evidence.


Dr. John Mikler is lecturer in the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney since February 2006. Although an early career researcher, John has around 10 years experience in policy development and implementation through several positions with the Australian Commonwealth Public Service.


Claudio Radaelli, Giandomenico Majone and Prize Winner John Mikler

Claudio Radaelli, Giandomenico Majone and Prize Winner John Mikler.


His research interests are primarily focused on the role of transnational economic actors, particularly multinational corporations, and the interaction between them and states, international organisations and civil society. He is currently researching the global regulation of online gambling. He has presented his findings at national and international conferences, and has had his research published as a working paper, book chapter, and as journal articles in "Global Society", "Business and Politics", and "Policy and Society".


Paper abstract: Globalisation is sometimes taken as a synonym for market liberalisation, and it is said that power has flowed from states to markets. Whether happening as a result of undeniable 'forces' or some hegemonic consensus, there is agreement on the left and right of politics that this is a reality. This paper examines how market liberalisation actually produces two countervailing forces in respect of regulation. On the one hand, domestic deregulation enhances market power and the discretion of market actors. Yet on the other hand, states with effective market-friendly regulations are able to influence outcomes beyond their borders. The cases of fuel economy and online gambling regulations are used to illustrate these points. In the former case, Japanese and European industry-driven regulations are being 'exported' in the attributes of the products of their car industries, producing pressures for harmonisation in other markets. In the case of online gambling, UK marketfriendly regulations are likely to be 'exported' to the European region and beyond because of market liberalisation principles embodied in European Union institutions. While seemingly unrelated cases, what they thus have in common is that domestic liberalisation coupled with globalisation is creating opportunities for global regulation.