Assessing the Profile of European Commissioners in Times of Crisis. Patterns of Continuity or Change, and Political Trajectories Within the European Commission.

Notwithstanding its unique institutional characteristics and the differentiated roles it has assumed at various phases of the integration process, the European Commission (EC) is a fundamental institution within the complex supranational politics. Its activities and policy decisions significantly impact the political landscape of European member states, especially in crisis moments. In comparative politics, the analysis of the recruitment, composition and characteristics of the political personnel of the executive branch is a paramount feature. Instead, for what concerns the EC, this area of study is relatively underdeveloped, with few studies that date back in time. In particular, these previous studies stopped early before the breakthrough of the various crises that overwhelmed the EU (Eurozone, migration, Covid-19, war in Ukraine, etc.) and the populist/radical turn that has been characterising European political systems in the last years. For this reason, the analysis of the commissioner's profiles can reveal some interesting hints about the elites’ response to crisis pressure. Collecting longitudinal data on various individual-level variables concerning commissioners (from 2004 to nowadays) can, first of all, reveal if we are witnessing a pattern of change or continuity in the profiles selected by member states. In a nutshell, are the “crisis Commissions” more technocratic or political compared to the past? If their profiles are mainly political, what are their defining characteristics (are they primarily recruited from legislative or executive national positions, and from subnational or national levels, etc.)? Related to this aspect, we can expect that a more "political" commission may be the national government's answer to crises that necessitate significant political expertise for coming up with policy answers that should be more political than merely regulatory. Furthermore, according to the specific commissioners’ backgrounds, is there a kind of linkage between the EU portfolio allocation (significance, designated sectors, etc.) and the type of expertise gained in national politics or as a professional expert? Additionally, can we define peculiar patterns of careers for EU commissioners connected to the logic of multilevel politics? Finally, what are the subsequent career paths of commissioners following their tenure in the EU? The EU office serves as a stepping stone for (new or different) relevant political positions at the national level, or it signifies the conclusion of the political career and the transition towards other professional activities?