Best PhD Thesis 2013
To be eligible for the award, the PhD thesis must:
- have been written in English
- have been examined in the previous calendar year (i.e. up to 31 December 2012)
- be authored by an Individual or Student member of UACES
Nominations should be sent to the UACES office and must be made by the PhD supervisor in conjunction with the external examiner and must include:
- two printed copies of the thesis (i.e. we mean hard-copies, we do not expect expensive binding)
- an electronic copy of the thesis (PDF sent to admin@uaces.org)
- a copy of the completed nomination form
The deadline for nominations is 15 March 2013.
The prize is £100.
Competition Rules
- The jury's decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into.
- No responsibility is accepted for ineligible entries.
- UACES does not accept any responsibility for late or lost entries. Proof of sending is not proof of receipt.
- UACES reserves the right to cancel this competition at any stage, if deemed necessary in its opinion.
- It is not always possible to return submissions.
- Entrants will be deemed to have accepted these rules and to agree to be bound by them when entering this competition.
Previous Winners
Ronan McCrea and Richard Whitman
The prize for the best thesis 2010 has been awarded to Ronan McCrea, London School of Economics & Political Science. His thesis was entitled 'Religion and the Public Order of the European Union'.
The prize for the best thesis 2009 has been awarded to Frank Häge, Leiden University, who was supervised by Prof Dr Bernard Steunenberg. His thesis was entitled 'Decision-Making in the Council of the European Union: The Role of Committees'. The judges considered this a very strong thesis, with an original research design, excellent mixture of quantitative and qualitative research tools, excellent case studies, and sufficiently well-written to be almost publishable in thesis form – an unusual achievement.
The winner, Frank Häge
The prize for the best thesis 2008 has been awarded to Mihalis Kritikos, Department of Law, from the London School of Economics & Political Science who was supervised by Professor Damian Chalmers and Dr Veerle Heyvaert. His thesis was entitled Institutions and Science in the Authorization of GMO Releases in the EU (1990 – 2007): The False Promise of Proceduralism. The judges commented that this was a truly interdisciplinary thesis on an important and under-studied issue which is a tightly-argued, well-designed and well-executed piece of research. They praised it as being extremely impressive and likely to generate high-quality important publications.
Mihalis Kritikos receiving his prize from Stephen Wall, with Alex Warleigh-Lack (left)
Thomas Larue receiving his prize from John Kerr
The judges decided to award the 2006 UACES Prize for the thesis making the most substantial contribution to European Studies jointly to Sara Binzer Hobolt and Maria Strömvik.
Sara Binzer Hobolt’s thesis, presented to the University of Cambridge in 2005 is entitled Europe in Question: The Role of Political Information in Referendums on European Integration under the supervision of Dr Pieter van Houten. The judges felt that this is an exceptional political science thesis which presents and applies a path-breaking theory of political information in connection with referendums on European integration. The theory was not confined to the European Union in its implications but to referendums in general. The conclusions were clear and the thesis makes a major contribution to European studies and comparative politics.
Maria Strömvik’s thesis, presented to the University of Lund in 2005 is entitled To Act as a Union: Explaining the development of the EU’s collective foreign policy under the supervision of Professor Magnus Jerneck. The judges concluded that this thesis offered a clear research question: how to explain the positive evolution of EPC/CFSP. It puts forward three hypotheses: institutional changes that generate a more cohesive EU foreign policy; balancing outside threat; balancing the global influence of the US. Strömvik opts for the last explanation, with corollary that the reinforcing that goes on at a time of crisis with the US is often in an unrelated area of foreign policy-making. However, the broad hypotheses, which make the thesis of wide interest, are combined with a rigorous methodology. The thesis’ overall contribution to knowledge is high because it has developed a powerful argument and it has shed considerable light on the dynamics of European foreign policy in an original manner.
The thesis looks at why the euro-area outcomes were different between two groups of countries – those observing the stability and growth pact strictures, and those failing to do so. What marks this work out in general, is that it tackles a subject – EMU – not only as a technical exercise in applied macroeconomics, and does so extremely ably, whilst at the same time offering original research in a novel regime of economic governance. That is, in seeking to explain events, Hodson is forced to engage in sophisticated economic analysis, and to critique the governance arrangements of the EMU fiscal policy system. In that latter aspect his enforced starting point is one in which there is very little in the way of existing analytical literature. The governance architecture of the fiscal policy side of EMU is novel and complex, in that it combines elements of institutionalised ‘soft law’ that co-exist with more conventional arrangements for international monetary diplomacy. Hodson picks apart this complexity very cleverly, and brings to bear upon it interesting analytical tools (including institutionalism) that help render it tractable in an intellectual sense.
The concluding sections of the thesis successfully bring together the various elements of the thesis and lead Hodson to generate some policy options for policy-makers if they are to make this fiscal dimension to EMU work more effectively.
Dermot Hodson and John Kerr