Project description
How do states address police misconduct?
No democracy is immune from the challenges of police violence and abuse. The question is how states address police misconduct and whether oversight institutions actually work. Currently, there is no systemic cross-national comparative research on states exercising coercive force. The ERC-funded VINO project will develop a theoretical framework that contains a wide array of facets of institutional design. It asks how these institutional facets impact on citizen perceptions of police legitimacy and willingness to file complaints. The project will compare the situation in all OECD democracies using a multi-method approach. It will conduct the first cross-national statistical analysis. It complements this analysis with a series of survey experiments.
Objective
How do states address police misconduct? Police violence and abuse occurs throughout the democratic world, presenting a challenge for states committed to exercising coercive force with discretion. One of the ways states address this problem is with police misconduct oversight institutions, which facilitate civilian reporting and state investigation of misconduct. But there is vast variation in the ways democracies design these institutions, and there is no systematic cross-national comparative research which can help us understand how different types of oversight institutions influence citizens’ behavior and attitudes to the state. As a consequence, decisionmakers lack the empirical basis necessary for developing informed policy. This project will develop a theoretical framework which contains a wider array of facets of institutional design than have been considered in previous research. It then asks how these institutional facets impact on citizen perceptions of police legitimacy and willingness to file complaints. The project studies these relationships within all OECD democracies using a multi-method approach. It first collects new, systematic data in order to conduct the first cross-national, statistical analysis. It complements this analysis with a series of survey experiments in order to overcome challenges to causal inference. Five case studies anchor this effort by helping to validate and contextualize the empirics. This project contributes by developing a new conceptual framework, innovating new and nuanced theoretical arguments, and studying them with rigorous, comparative methods. This research agenda is important because understanding how these oversight institutions are designed and whether they work can provide us with important leverage on understanding the foundations of democratic governance and state respect for the civil rights of its citizens.
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
This project's classification has been human-validated.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
This project's classification has been human-validated.
Keywords
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
-
H2020-EU.1.1. - EXCELLENT SCIENCE - European Research Council (ERC)
MAIN PROGRAMME
See all projects funded under this programme
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
ERC-COG - Consolidator Grant
See all projects funded under this funding scheme
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
(opens in new window) ERC-2020-COG
See all projects funded under this callHost institution
Net EU financial contribution. The sum of money that the participant receives, deducted by the EU contribution to its linked third party. It considers the distribution of the EU financial contribution between direct beneficiaries of the project and other types of participants, like third-party participants.
9220 Aalborg
Denmark
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.