
What did “Guided by the Science” mean over time?
In this talk, Paul Carney (University of Stirling) explores whether comparisons over time on COVID-19 policy-making are as valuable as comparing political systems.
In early 2020, UK government ministers stated repeatedly that their COVID-19 policy was ‘guided by the science’. At the time, ‘the science’ was shorthand for ‘our scientists’, since ministers formed strong relationships with senior government scientific advisors, who relied on regular evidence from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) (Cairney, 2021). Initially, these relationships were akin to those of interest groups: senior advisers were akin to ‘core insiders’, consulted frequently on multiple issues; SAGE were ‘specialist insiders’, consulted on niche issues; and, most others were ‘peripheral insiders’ with minimal influence, or ‘outsiders’. Consequently, ministers produced UK COVID-19 policies that were highly consistent with the evidence or advice from their most trusted sources. Over time, UK ministers appeared to diverge more from this scientific advice, and senior advisors sought to establish a greater professional distance between their role (providing evidence) and ministerial roles (to make choices based on multiple sources of evidence and advice).
In this talk, I explore two aspects of this experience. First, can we use established concepts – such as regarding policy communities and interest groups – to capture these developments? Second, does a detailed focus on advice and policy developments over time help to identify a series of phases to compare? In other words, if we are studying COVID-19 policymaking during acute then longer-term crises, are comparisons over time as valuable as comparing political systems?

Join Fanny Badache who will examine the effect of world politics on peacekeeping through the case of the UN mission in Mali from 2013 until today.

Join Shogu Suzuki at his lecture on racial hierarchies in contemporary international society, part of the EU-Asia project of the Global Governance Programme
Speaker(s): Shogo Suzuki (University of Manchester)

This Global Citizenship Seminar Series will host a presentation by Denis Scuto
The Luxembourg nationality law of 23 October 2008, which introduced double ius soli and the toleration of dual or multiple citizenship, represented a paradigm shift in direction of liberalisation and openness of citizenship legislation. The vote of a new nationality law by parliament on 9 February, 2017 was a further milestone in the history of Luxembourgish citizenship, a. o. introducing conditional simple ius soli at the age of majority, lowering residence period before naturalisation and reintroducing optional rights.
In 2008, 278.000 people (58 %) out of a population of 484.000 had Luxembourg citizenship. In 2022, 342.000 Luxembourgers, thus 64.000 more than 2008, live in the Grand Duchy (population 2022: 646.000; 53 % Luxembourgers). Furthermore, through the ‘re- ethnicising’ art. 29 of 2008 law – a person can re-acquire Luxembourgish citizenship provided he or she has a male or female ancestor who possessed Luxembourgish citizenship on 1 January 1900 – 23.000 new Luxembourg citizens, living abroad, have to be added to these figures. So, nearly 90.000 Luxembourgers added in only 13 years, a third more!
In his seminar, Denis Scuto will analyse the link between migration and citizenship policies on one side and migrants’ strategies and behaviours on the other side and thus shed some light on the relations between migrants and state authorities or legislations.

This Global Citizenship Seminar Series will host a presentation by Milena Tripkovic
Speaker(s): Milena Tripkovic (Edinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh)