Students will have an opportunity to practice their skills in a simulation of real-life policy making. The exercise is based on intensive group work and consists of in-class debate over a policy issue and submission of written policy proposal jointly written by all group members.

Three groups, each consisting of 6 students, will be formed. Each group will be further divided into two subgroups. One sub-group will write a policy proposal using the perspective of Western European countries. The other sub-group will write a proposal using the perspective of Central European countries. 

Debates will take place in Weeks 9, 10 and 11. Each debate will last about 60 minutes. The role of moderator will be to introduce the topic and lead the debate. Students shall enrol to debate topics in IS. The subgroups will be created randomly and announced in due time. 

Project topics: 

Topic 1: Tackling undeclared work (proposed questions)

Topic 2: Cultural and social factors contributing to gender gaps in the labour market (proposed questions)

• What is the size of the gender wage gap?
• How market segregation (both horizontal and vertical) contribute to the gender wage gap?
• How the market segregation is related to educational choices?
• How regulations concerning parental leave influence the gender wage gap?
• What is the size of motherhood penalty?
• How cultural factors (for instance associated with the division household chores) could add to the gender wage gap?
• How the gender wage gap is associated with pensions?
• What policy solutions could be introduced to limit the gender wage gap and pension 

Topic 3: New policy plans concerned with platform work (proposed questions)

Assignment of teams: 

P1 Moderator: Jawad

P1 Undeclared work - East: Kyrylo and Ján

P1 Undeclared work - West: Khalid, Datta and Jordi

P2 Moderator: Zbyněk 

P2 Gender gaps - East: Eter and Loris

P2 Gender gaps - West: Isaac, Nasrtullah and Timo

P3 Moderator: Martin

P3 Platform work - East: Vojtěch, Alex, and Taleh

P3 Platform work - West: Maria Silvia, Terézia, and Sofia

Context: Your teams have been hired by the European Commission to inform policymakers about the best practices to address the issue. Your recommendations should be based on available evidence.

To ensure that your presentations are effective, I recommend a structure based on several rounds.

*Round 1* should provide an overview of the issue, including current trends, public opinion, and explain why this topic is policy relevant in the country (think also who is the target group of the policy).

The moderator should introduce the topic, provide general context and explain the terminology, and argue why policymakers should care about it.

Then, each team member should provide a regional perspective, highlighting country or sector-specific trends, affected groups, and how the issue is perceived in the society and media. You may consider consulting Eurobarometer or ESS data, or other relevant media sources.

Source: https://eupinions.eu/de/home

Tip: check the archive of the Economist:

https://ezdroje.muni.cz/prehled/zdroj.php?lang=en&id=502

*Round 2* should provide different policy approaches, what works and what does not.

The moderator should present different policy approaches that the EU has undertaken to address the problem (you can discuss 1-2 policies).

Each team member should then present the evidence for a specific policy that have been implemented. Be specific about the implementation, the success of the policy, and whether it has been adopted in more countries or it is unique (depends on what information you can find).

*Round 3* should focus on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the discussed issue and the new/recent policy initiatives that are aimed at improving the situation.

The moderator should provide an EU-wide perspective, and each team member should present the situation in their selected countries.

Lastly, in *Round 4*, each student not presenting should prepare a few sentences on a related policy that has been implemented (or not) in their country or current policy debates they’ve come across.