Jean Monnet Chair is a distinction awarded to professors with a specialization in European Union studies. JM Chairs expand EU studies at their home institutions through teaching, research, resource development, and mentoring. The JM Chair (ad personam) at the University of Florida is Dr. Amie Kreppel. As a JM Chair, Dr. Kreppel offers a wide range of courses on the European Union both on campus and as part of the UF in Brussels study abroad program. In addition to teaching, the JM Chair grant is used to support research on the EU that includes junior faculty and graduate students, supports the EU Studies Club on campus, and offers opportunities for undergraduate students to present original research on the EU at conferences and workshops around the country.
Meet Dr. Amie Kreppel
Jean Monnet Chair (ad personam)

Amie Kreppel is a Jean Monnet Chair (ad personam), and the founding Director of the University of Florida Center for European Studies and Jean Monnet Center of Excellence. She is also a Professor in the Department of Political Science. Dr. Kreppel served as Chair of the European Union Studies Association from 2011-2013 and was the Fulbright-Schuman Chair at the College of Europe in 2016.
JM Chair Research
Publications
Kreppel, Amie and Murad Gafarov (Forthcoming 2026) “The Evolution of Legislative Oversight in the EU,” in Democracy at the Crossroads: Challenges for Government and Representation
Abstract: Among the main functions of traditional legislatures, legislative oversight has received comparatively little attention in the context of the European Parliament. This research examines the evolution of the oversight tools available to the EP, exploring the relationship between the acquisition of direct legislative powers and the pursuit and use of oversight tools in policy-making. We suggest that when the EP lacks the ability to directly shape the policy process, initially focuses on the acquisition of oversight opportunities, and once these are obtained the EP focuses on ex-post oversight of decisions made by other institutions. However, the EP’s approach to oversight changes as it gains greater access to information through ex-ante oversight tools and acquires additional legislative powers, allowing it to have more influence over policy..
Kreppel, Amie and Corinne Tomasi (2025) “Oversight, Accountability, or Influence? Understanding the Use of Monetary Dialogues in the European Parliament” Politics and Governance, Vol. 13
Abstract: The Monetary Dialogue (MD) between the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Parliament (EP) has received ample research that has offered an insightful discussion on the effectiveness of the dialogue as a forum for ECB accountability. However, most of the literature has focused on what the ECB is held accountable for or how the ECB engages in the dialogues. Key questions remain, however, regarding the goals and actions of the individual members of the European Parliament (MEPs) that this article seeks to address. First, we develop a theoretical framework that moves beyond a general concept of “accountability” and differentiates between accountability, oversight, and influence. By defining the concepts more precisely, our aim is to distinguish types of engagement and offer a comparative perspective to broaden the discussion of accountability forums. Second, our article contributes to a growing subset of literature on the MD that shifts the focus from what the ECB gets from the dialogues to how MEPs utilize the MD. To achieve this, we analyze and code MEP questions during the quarterly MD and investigate the impact that member state, national party, and EP political group affiliation have on the character of the questions asked by MEPs over time.
Kostadinova, P. & A. Kreppel (2021) “Loyal agent or shirking partner: understanding the policy goals of national ministers in the Council of the European Union“, Journal of European Public Policy
Abstract: Research on representation within the European Union (EU) often assumes that partisan policy preferences are mediated primarily through the European Parliament, while the European Council and Council of the EU (Council) represent national interests. This assumption obfuscates the potential for divergent policy preferences within Council delegations, the majority of which are coalitions comprised of ideologically diverse parties. Such divergent preferences within national governments provide an incentive for coalition partners to pursue policy outcomes at the EU level that diverge from those of their coalition. This research assesses the existence of such policy shirking by members of the Council utilizing the DEU III dataset, party manifestos, and a new dataset on the partisan characteristics of individual Council members. This analysis provides insights into the factors that affect variations between national positions (as measured by the DEU III) and coalition member preferences (as reflected in party manifestos).
Oztas, B. & A. Kreppel (2021) “Power or Luck? The Limitations of the European Commission’s Agenda Setting Power and Autonomous Policy Influence,” Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 59, No. 4,
Abstract: Building on the existing research on the European Commission’s agenda-setting powers, this study examines the relationship between the policy priorities of the Commission and those of the other key policy actors in the European Union to determine the impact of other EU institutional actor preferences on the success of Commission priority initiatives. By using new and existing datasets to compare the European Commission’s Work Programmes with European Council Summit Conclusions, the European Parliament’s own initiative reports and Council Presidency Work Programmes, we are able to analyse the effect of policy priority congruence on the Commission’s success and measure the autonomous policy influence of the Commission more accurately. Our results demonstrate that the Commission’s priority initiatives are significantly more likely to result in legislative outcomes when they address policy topics already highlighted (whether fortuitously or as a result of Commission efforts) by the other key EU institutions. They also suggest that interpretations of the EU political system that ascribe the role of political executive to the Commission misconstrue its role.
Webb, Michael & Amie Kreppel (2020) “The European Parliament’s Role as an Informal EU Agenda Setter: the Influence of Own Initiative Reports” Public Administration Vol. 99, Issue 2: 304-320.
Abstract: This article examines the conditions under which the European Parliament (EP) effectively exercises its informal agenda setting powers to directly influence the content of the European Union’s policy agenda through the use of ‘own initiative reports’ or EPOIR. We test three models of EPOIR influence (salience, linkage and ideology) utilizing a newly created dataset of all substantive references to EPOIR within Commission pre-legislative communications and legislative proposals produced between 2000 and 2017. These references serve as the dependent variable in our analysis, which seeks to identify the traits of EPOIR that increase their likelihood of exerting agenda influence. Our findings suggest not only that EPOIR can and do help to shape the EU policy agenda, but that salience and inter-institutional linkage are the most effective attributes in explaining when this type of EP agenda setting effort via EPOIR is most likely to be successful.
Kreppel, Amie & Michael Webb (2019) “European Parliament Resolutions – Effective Agenda Setting or Whistling into the Wind” Journal of European Integration, Vol. 41 No. 3: 383-404.
Abstract: The European Parliament (EP) is one of the most studied legislatures in the world. The general consensus in most of these analyses is that the power of the EP in the legislative decision-making processes of the EU has increased precipitously, particularly since the introduction of the co-decision procedure. One continuing perceived weakness of the EP, however, is its inability to introduce new legislation. While the EP can request that the Commission initiate a policy proposal, it lacks the power to formally introduce bills itself. This is an anomaly among legislatures in democratic systems, which generally have at least the formal right to try to set the policy agenda through the initiation of bills. This research looks at the indirect agenda setting power of the EP through an analysis of EP own initiative (INI) resolutions and their impact on the policy agenda of the EU. The research introduces a new dataset on all EP resolutions between 2000 and 2015 and compares the pre- and post-2009 period to assess whether the recent formal treaty changes to the legislative role of the EP have affected its agenda-setting capacity. The results suggest that despite its lack of a formal power of initiative the EP is able shape the legislative agenda of the EU in under certain circumstances, particularly post-Lisbon.
Kreppel, Amie (2018) “Bicameralism and the balance of power in EU legislative politics” Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1: 11-33.
Abstract: While there are many studies that focus on the changing power of the European Parliament (EP), the shifting relationships between European Union (EU) institutions has received far less attention. Few consider the impact of the transformation of the EP on the other core EU institutions, particularly the Commission and Council. Together these three institutions determine the policy outcomes of the EU, but how they work together and the changing balance of power between them is largely a mystery. This research seeks to fill this lacuna by examining the relative policy influence of these institutions through the lens of policy preference congruence and inter-institutional policy coalitions. Utilizing the DEU II dataset to measure institutional policy preferences and policy outcomes it is possible to discern patterns of policy preference congruence between these institutions and assess their relative influence over policy outcomes. This research finds that previous expectations of a stable policy coalition between the two “supranational” actors are no longer accurate. Increasingly the EP and the Council share policy congruence and form effective policy coalitions. Moreover, the historical dependence of the EP on the support of the Commission has diminished, while the Council continues to exert largely independent policy influence.
Working Papers
Kreppel, Amie and Petia Kostadinova, “Responding to Whose Priorities: EP Political Group Positions Theory and Practice”
Abstract: Despite longstanding concerns regarding a possible ‘democratic deficit’ in the European Union, there is comparatively little research on the linkage function played by the European Parliament (EP) political groups. In particular, the extent to which the political groups represent, pursue, and are successful at obtaining policy outcomes that align with the policy preferences of their national electorate. This research utilizes the fourth wave of the Decision-making in Europe (DEU IV) dataset to evaluate the extent to which political group positions reflect the ideologies and policy preferences of their member national delegations (using CHES scores) and the subsequent success of both political groups and rapporteurs in obtaining policy outcomes that reflect their preferences. Through this analysis we gain insight into the representativeness of EP political actors and their impact on policymaking at the EU level.
Presented at the 121st APSA Annual Meeting & Exhibition, September 11-14, held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
JM Chair Research Collaborators
Faculty

Murad Gafarov
Murad Gafarov is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science at Texas Wesleyan University in Fort Worth, Texas, where he teaches a broad variety of courses in political science. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Florida in 2025. His research focuses on the history of political thought and political institutions, with a regional emphasis on Europe. He is particularly interested in the intellectual foundations and historical development of federalism, popular sovereignty, and political responsibility, and in the ways these ideas shape state and supranational governance.

Petia Kostadinova
Petia Kostadinova is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Prior to joining UIC, between 2004-2011, she worked at the Center for European Studies at UF in various capacities. Prof. Kostadinova’s work spans topics of mandate representation, voters’ awareness of party positions, media framing of election news, and the role of media in fulfillment of party priorities. Her research has appeared in the American Journal of Political Science, Electoral Studies, East European Politics, European Journal of Communications, Journal of Common Market Studies, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Party Politics, Political Communication, and Politics & Policy among others. Prof. Kostadinova also co-edited a volume on the 30th university of the first democratic elections in Bulgaria, offering interdisciplinary accounts of the strengths and deficiencies of the country’s institutions.

Buket Oztas
Buket Oztas is an Assistant Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina. She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Florida in 2016 and served as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Government at Franklin and Marshall College. Her expertise is in comparative politics and her research focuses on changing institutional dynamics with a particular focus on the interplay between political Islam and democratization, as well as an ongoing research initiative on the agenda-setting powers of the European Commission co-authored with Dr. Amie Kreppel, begun while a graduate student.
Graduate Students

Corinne Tomasi
Corinne is a political science PhD candidate at the University of Florida. At UF, her work has focused on the European Economic and Monetary Union applying state-building literature to understand the asymmetric evolution of fiscal and monetary governance in the EU. Her other interests include: International Political Economy, Comparative Institutions, Politics of Monetary Policy, Economic Integration in the EU.

Michael Webb
Michael was a political science PhD student at the University of Florida. At UF, his work focused on understanding the structural forces that have driven the rise of populism. He is especially interested in the connection between the representative failure of party systems and the uneven geographic distribution of the consequences of liberalization and automation. His other interests include: Populism, Economic Geography, Programmatic Data Collection, Informal Governance, and the Institutional Dynamics of the European Union.
JM Chair Sponsored Activities
JM Chair Lecture Series – Oversight and Accountability
As part of the Erasmus+ funding, the JM Chair hosts a series of virtual panels, in person talks, and a final workshop on types of accountability and oversight in the European Union, including intra-institutional, inter-institutional, and external accountability.
JM Chair Accountability and Oversight Series
| Title | Date | Panelists | Location/Video Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic Oversight and Accountability in the EU | September 19, 2024 | Selma Bendjaballah (SciencesPo) Petia Kostadinova (University of Illinois, Chicago) Guri Rosen (University of Olso) | Click Here |
| How Accountable are Central Banks Before Parliaments: The European Central Bank in Comparative Perspective | April 11, 2025 | Nicolo Fraccaroli (Brown University) | 3310 Turlington Hall |
| The European Union at a Critical Juncture: Policy Trade Offs, Accountability, and Coordinative Europeanization | April 21, 2025 | Laura Polverari (Universita degli Studi di Padova) | |
| Strengthening Accountability through European Parliament Confirmation Hearings | November 18, 2025 | Anchrit Wille (Leiden University) | |
| JM Chair Accountability Workshop | March 30-21, 2026 | TBD | 216 Dauer Hall |
JM Chair Student Travel Award
The JM Chair Travel award provides funding for undergraduate and graduate students pursuing EU-related research to participate in academic workshops and conferences. Funding is available to students in all majors and colleges.
EU Studies Club
The objective of the EU Club is to provide students with information and resources regarding the European Union and its Member States. The EU Club acts as a networking base to keep students informed about internships, graduate schools, studying abroad and other opportunities available to them in Europe.
About Erasmus+ Jean Monnet
Jean Monnet Activities are designed to promote excellence in teaching and research in the field of European Union studies worldwide. The activities also foster the dialogue between the academic world and policy-makers, in particular with the aim of enhancing governance of EU policies.
The Center for European Studies received the 2018 Jean Monnet Chair and Jean Monnet Center of Excellence for 2021-2024.

