Research
Areas
Projects
An interdisciplinary focus group at the TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology studying how political and technological disruptions – from artificial intelligence and Big Tech to Brexit, populism, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine – unfold at national, European and global levels. Together with political scientists, economists, historians and engineers, the team develops a typology of disruptions and a framework explaining how, why and with what consequences they occur.
With new powers on the rise, above all China, can the US and Europe retain their global influence by working together? The project examines how much transatlantic cooperation actually takes place, how efficient it is and how its gains and losses are distributed – from defence in NATO and the EU to the Global Gateway, trade and finance – and derives data-based policy recommendations for Europe and North America.
Partners: Princeton University, European University Institute
International cooperation increasingly takes place in regime complexes – overlapping and partly competing institutions governing the same issue area. The project examines how these complexes change, persist or decline, distinguishes adaptive from maladaptive evolution and identifies the external and internal sources of change. First results appeared in a special forum in Global Studies Quarterly (2026).
Partners: American University, Temple University
How is China’s rise reshaping global economic governance? The project maps China’s role in development finance, trade and sovereign debt restructuring – in the WTO, the G20, the Paris Club and multilateral development banks. It shows that China is neither simply a “revisionist” nor a “supporter” of the liberal order but engages selectively. Results appeared in a special issue of the Review of International Political Economy (2025).
Partners: University of Sydney
Interdisciplinary analysis of China’s AI-supported Social Credit System and its opportunities and risks for German politics, business and society.
Period: 2020–2023 · Funding: bidt
Investigates when international bureaucracies deviate from member states’ mandates and how organizational structure shapes such agency slack.
Period: 2017–2021 · Funding: DFG
Traces how the legacies of Bretton Woods and later innovations shaped monetary, financial, development and trade governance.
ERC-funded research on the delegation of authority to, and empowerment of, international organizations over time.
Period: 2012–2019 · Funding: ERC
Grants
Delegation and Empowerment of International Organizations over Time
Over the past decades, states have delegated growing authority to international organizations. The project explains when, how and why this empowerment occurs and how state preferences towards it change over time. Drawing on political science, economics, law and organizational sociology, it compares six IOs – EU, GATT/WTO, IMF, UNESCO, WHO and World Bank – since 1950, based on archival research and elite interviews. Its core argument: empowerment depends on temporal dynamics, the cohesion among member states and the design of the delegation contract.
A Multi-Disciplinary Analysis of Disruptions in Politics and Technology
Rapid advances in technology – artificial intelligence, Big Tech, autonomous driving – and political shocks such as Brexit, the backlash against globalization, populism, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine challenge liberal democracies and the global order. This interdisciplinary focus group develops a typology of disruptions and a theoretical framework explaining how, why and with what consequences they occur at national, European and global levels.
Variations in the Regulation of New Technologies
New global giants such as Amazon and Google have put competition and antitrust policy at the top of the agenda. This focus group places the regulation of platform firms in a comparative-historical perspective, comparing Germany and the United States, and explains why countries respond so differently to the labour issues raised by the platform economy and the growth of atypical employment.
Learning from the “Frontrunner”? The Chinese Social Credit System and its Impact on Germany
Since 2014, China has been building a social credit system that rates the creditworthiness of individuals and companies. The project analysed its data basis, its development and its effects on Germany and global institutions. It found large differences between provinces and a general lack of transparency; Chinese SMEs face high compliance pressure, while German firms are less affected. There was no concrete evidence of the system being exported, although Chinese academic debates point to efforts to make it “exportable”.
China in Global Economic Governance
China’s growing economic and political weight is reshaping global economic governance. The project maps China’s role in development finance, trade and sovereign debt restructuring – in the WTO, the G20, the Paris Club and multilateral development banks – and shows that China engages selectively: it is neither simply a “revisionist” nor a “supporter” of the liberal order. Results appeared in a special issue of the Review of International Political Economy (2025).
International Bureaucracies as “Runaway Agents”? How Organizational Structure Affects Agency Slack
International bureaucracies set agendas, implement policies and even settle disputes – and are sometimes portrayed as “runaway agents” escaping the control of member states. The project asks under which conditions secretariats deviate from their mandate. Combining fuzzy-set QCA with process-tracing on 27 international bureaucracies, it examines how fragmentation, staffing rules, buffering and permeability shape agency slack – refining principal-agent theory.
News
New Publication on International Regime Complexity
BibTeX (Download)
@article{Heldt2026c,
title = {The Evolution of International Regime Complexes: Adaptation and Maladaptation in International Cooperation},
author = {Eugénia C. Heldt and C. Randall Henning and Orfeo Fioretos},
doi = {10.1093/isagsq/ksag139},
issn = {2634-3797},
year = {2026},
date = {2026-09-29},
urldate = {2026-09-29},
journal = {Global Studies Quarterly},
volume = {6},
number = {4},
publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
abstract = {This article introduces a special forum devoted to the evolution of international regime complexes in three parts. First, it develops a novel distinction between adaptive and maladaptive evolution and maps diverse patterns of change in well-known and emerging international regime complexes. Second, it theorizes a variety of exogenous and endogenous sources of change that impact the configuration and effects of regime complexes. Here it draws on theories of regime complexity, along with theories of power transition, institutions, and delegation, to explain variations in evolutionary patterns. Finally, the paper summarizes eleven original contributions that make up the special forum and lays the groundwork for further theorizing about the conditions under which regime complexes adapt in ways that enhance or undermine international cooperation. We find, among other things, that the prevalence of endogenous sources of change is positively associated with adaptation of regime complexes, and invite further investigation of this relationship.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article introduces a special forum devoted to the evolution of international regime complexes in three parts. First, it develops a novel distinction between adaptive and maladaptive evolution and maps diverse patterns of change in well-known and emerging international regime complexes. Second, it theorizes a variety of exogenous and endogenous sources of change that impact the configuration and effects of regime complexes. Here it draws on theories of regime complexity, along with theories of power transition, institutions, and delegation, to explain variations in evolutionary patterns. Finally, the paper summarizes eleven original contributions that make up the special forum and lays the groundwork for further theorizing about the conditions under which regime complexes adapt in ways that enhance or undermine international cooperation. We find, among other things, that the prevalence of endogenous sources of change is positively associated with adaptation of regime complexes, and invite further investigation of this relationship.
The Political Power of Digital Multinational Companies in an Era of Geo-Technological Competition
BibTeX (Download)
@article{Dafe2026b,
title = {The Political Power of Digital Multinational Companies in an Era of Geo-Technological Competition},
author = {Florence Dafe and Eugénia C. Heldt},
doi = {10.1080/09692290.2026.2645101},
issn = {1466-4526},
year = {2026},
date = {2026-09-03},
urldate = {2026-09-03},
journal = {Review of International Political Economy},
volume = {33},
number = {5},
pages = {2446--2467},
publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
abstract = {This commentary examines the political power of digital multinational companies (MNCs). Our review of the existing literature finds that comparative scholarship has focused on state-business relationships at the country level and sheds light on the sources of power flowing from the positions of digital companies in national political economies. However, to a lesser extent, comparativists have studied the power flowing from digital companies within global network structures. To address this research gap, this commentary makes two contributions to the literature. First, it systematizes extant scholarship and expands it by bringing together two different strands of literature – comparative political economy scholarship on business power and scholarship on interdependence in global networks in international relations and international political economy – to illuminate the power of digital MNCs in an era of geo-technological competition. Second, this commentary identifies factors countervailing the power of digital MNCs: replacement networks, international regimes, and mutual interdependence.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This commentary examines the political power of digital multinational companies (MNCs). Our review of the existing literature finds that comparative scholarship has focused on state-business relationships at the country level and sheds light on the sources of power flowing from the positions of digital companies in national political economies. However, to a lesser extent, comparativists have studied the power flowing from digital companies within global network structures. To address this research gap, this commentary makes two contributions to the literature. First, it systematizes extant scholarship and expands it by bringing together two different strands of literature – comparative political economy scholarship on business power and scholarship on interdependence in global networks in international relations and international political economy – to illuminate the power of digital MNCs in an era of geo-technological competition. Second, this commentary identifies factors countervailing the power of digital MNCs: replacement networks, international regimes, and mutual interdependence.
New Special Issue on the EU’s Global Gateway Initiative
BibTeX (Download)
@collection{ech002,
title = {The European Union’s Global Gateway Initiative: The Geopoliticization of Development Aid and Foreign Economic Policy},
editor = {Eugénia C. Heldt and Sophie Meunier},
doi = {10.1080/07036337.2026.2716369},
year = {2026},
date = {2026-01-01},
urldate = {2026-01-01},
publisher = {Journal of European Integration, Volume 48, Issue 6},
abstract = {The European Union (EU) launched the Global Gateway initiative in 2021 as a strategic pivot in European approaches to development aid and foreign policy amid intensifying great power competition. This Special Issue examines the extent to which the Global Gateway constitutes a genuine geoeconomic innovation or consolidates and rebrands existing development policy with a new framing. Five years after its launch, contributors analyze three critical dimensions: the initiative’s novelty as an economic security instrument; its implications for intra-EU institutional balance between the Commission, Member States, and European Parliament; and its impact on the EU’s positioning in great power competition vis-à-vis China’s Belt and Road Initiative and U.S. infrastructure partnerships. Drawing on empirical analyses of flagship projects, financing mechanisms, Team Europe coordination, and perceptions across the Global South, this collection advances understanding of the EU’s geoeconomic turn and its capacity to act as a geopolitical actor in global infrastructure finance.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {collection}
}
New Special Issue on the EU’s Global Gateway Initiative
Jointly with Sophie Meunier, Prof. da Conceição-Heldt has published a new special issue in the Journal of European Integration on the EU’s Global Gateway Initiative. In the introductory piece “The EU’s Global Gateway initiative: the geopoliticization of development aid and foreign economic policy”, they demonstrate how the geopoliticization of the EU’s development aid and foreign economic policy happened. To know more just follow the article’s link below:
Heldt, E. C., & Meunier, S. (2026). The EU’s Global Gateway initiative: the geopoliticization of development aid and foreign economic policy. Journal of European Integration, 48(6), 901–921. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2026.2716369
ABSTRACT
The European Union (EU) launched the Global Gateway initiative in 2021 as a strategic pivot in European approaches to development aid and foreign policy amid intensifying great power competition. This Special Issue examines the extent to which the Global Gateway constitutes a genuine geoeconomic innovation or consolidates and rebrands existing development policy with a new framing. Five years after its launch, contributors analyze three critical dimensions: the initiative’s novelty as an economic security instrument; its implications for intra-EU institutional balance between the Commission, Member States, and European Parliament; and its impact on the EU’s positioning in great power competition vis-à-vis China’s Belt and Road Initiative and U.S. infrastructure partnerships. Drawing on empirical analyses of flagship projects, financing mechanisms, Team Europe coordination, and perceptions across the Global South, this collection advances understanding of the EU’s geoeconomic turn and its capacity to act as a geopolitical actor in global infrastructure finance.
In a second piece, together with Robert Basedow and Sophie Meunier, they study how the EU implemented the Global Gateway Initiative via Team Europe by adjusting the governance structure through enhanced intergovernmental coordination but without supranational centralization, what they term constrained governance adjustment. To read more, just click the following link:
Basedow, R., Heldt, E. C., & Meunier, S. (2026). Team Europe goes Global Gateway: how China’s geopolitical rise affects EU governance in development and infrastructure financing. Journal of European Integration, 48(6), 1011–1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2026.2715686
ABSTRACT
While existing research explains how China’s geopolitical rise caused the enactment of the EU’s Global Gateway (GG) Initiative, this paper examines how the EU adjusted its governance of development policy. European integration scholarship suggests four possible responses to exogenous pressure: additional supranational delegation, greater intergovernmental coordination, institutional status quo, or disintegration. Drawing on primary research and elite interviews, we argue that geopolitical competition with China has not produced a transfer of competences to the supranational level. Instead, it has accelerated coordination without delegation: member states and EU institutions have developed new mechanisms that reorganize how the Union formulates and delivers development and infrastructure finance. Empirically, the paper documents how the GG was implemented via Team Europe, producing institutional adaptation without supranational centralization. Theoretically, we identify when geopolitical pressure favours tighter intergovernmental coordination over supranational delegation, particularly in domains with fragmented competences and strong member-state preferences for visibility and bilateral ties.
