Working Papers

Recent events such as Brexit, the migration crisis, and pandemic-related border closures have exposedmoments of disintegration within the European Union (EU), challenging the principle of free movement. This study examines how national governmental actors justify such restrictive border policies that counter one of the EU’s core values. Grounded in the concept of democratic accountability, the paper argues that justifications are essential for securing public legitimacy and support. Leveraging a novel dataset of German government communications, including speeches and press conferences from 2013 to 2023, an inductively developed coding scheme is applied to identify the justification strategies used by German officials. Based on those results, we develop a multi-dimensional and context-dependent typology of justifications, revealing four distinct approaches: Legal-Solidarity, Security-Enforcement, Public-Health-Emergency, and Critical-Evaluation. The findings reveal that German government actors adopt varied justification approaches based on their roles, with different approaches emerging depending on crises and the electoral cycle. Notably, while Legal-Solidarity justifications remain stable, Security-Enforcement and Public-Health-Emergency justifications increase strategically in response to crises and as elections approach. These insights contribute to the understanding of how governments maintain democraticaccountability through public justification, even in the face of contentious and restrictive policy.

Europe’s internal border politics are increasingly politicized, with several member states recently reintroducing Schengen controls and challenging the principle of free movement. Although often framed as temporary responses to external threats - such as surges in migration or public health crises - these policies risk normalizing restrictive border measures, even for EU citizens. This study examines how government justifications for altering border policies (i.e., introducing or lifting controls) shape public support, perceived legitimacy, and trust in political authorities. We first identify distinct justification strategies employed by the German government from 2013 to 2023, examining how different aims (e.g., security, economy) and processes (e.g., legal compliance, effectiveness, solidarity) are used to justify policy shifts. Building on these insights, we conduct a multi-factorial survey experiment in Germany, the Netherlands, and France. Participants are exposed to hypothetical government communications featuring varied justifications, allowing us to test their causal impact on public opinion and trust. We hypothesise that certain justifications will bolster support for border restrictions, enhance perceptions of policy legitimacy, and increase trust in political authorities. By experimentally assessing the effectiveness of these strategies, our findings illuminate the mechanisms through which governments shape public perceptions of border control. This has significant implications for the sustainability of open borders, the resilience of European integration, and the future of trust in (EU) institutions.

The European Union (EU) currently faces substantial challenges, including rising nationalist sentiments and contentious debates surrounding migration and intra-EU border controls. Despite open borders being celebrated as a key achievement of European integration, public support for reinstating border controls remains high. This paradox underscores the importance of examining how citizens define European identity and determine who belongs within this community. Our study moves beyond traditional categorisations of identity (exclusive national versus inclusive European) by investigating both individual self-identifications and the nuanced traits, values, and behaviors citizens associate with Europeanness. Employing an innovative mixed-methods approach, we analyze qualitative, open-text responses through latent semantic scaling (LSS), capturing identity dimensions that transcend the conventional civic-ethnic dichotomy. Comparative cross-national analysis in Germany, France, and the Netherlands further reveals how distinct political cultures and migration histories shape the meaning of European identity. By integrating self-identification with detailed explorations of identity content, we illuminate how identity influences public attitudes toward migration policies and intra-European border controls. This comprehensive approach contributes valuable insights to policymakers, enriches debates on European integration, and deepens our understanding of belonging and identity in an increasingly interconnected yet contested Europe.

Historical analogies (HAs) are cultural tools for making sense of a current situation by drawing comparisons to a past event. Their use in communication and understanding can be observed since ancient times and in societies around the world, especially in times of crisis. The present paper explores the role they played in people’s everyday thinking during the COVID-19 pandemic, including what HAs were used, how they changed over time, who used them, and to what effect. To do this it draws on a longitudinal project in Germany that included a national representative survey (N=1080) and follow-up interviews (N=38) done at three data collection points. The interviews were coded for HAs, the results of which are presented in three steps: first, an overview of the HAs used and their change over time is given; second, characteristics of the most frequent users are outlined; and third, a case study of the most frequent user is presented. The article highlights the everyday use of HAs by people through time, their social distribution between majorities and active minorities, their link to conspiracy mentality and their personal psychological functions. 

The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented conditions for examining how vaccination willingness evolves during prolonged health crises. This longitudinal mixed-methods study examines temporal dynamics in COVID-19 vaccination willingness across three phases of Germany’s vaccination campaign (N = 1,063 survey respondents; n = 40 interview participants). Using mixed-effects models and thematic analysis, we tested whether institutional trust and personal risk perception predict vaccination willingness, and how their relative importance changes over time. Results reveal that trust in scientific institutions emerges as the strongest predictor, outperforming political trust and becoming more influential over time while risk perception becomes less predictive. Qualitative analysis identified three decision-making themes (pro-vaccination, anti-vaccination, conditional reasoning) with 30% of participants expressing both pro and con arguments. Findings demonstrate a shift from analytical, risk-focused decision-making to heuristic, trust-based processing as vaccination campaigns progress, with important implications for adaptive public health communication strategies.