This paper is in line with research that analyzes the careers of European parliamentarians, adopting a comparative and cross-sectional approach and taking into account previous and subsequent political experiences in a multilevel perspective. Indeed, we propose a comparison between two similar cases, namely two southern European countries that have a quasi-federal system or are affected by an important regionalization process – Spain and Italy – and we examine a rather long time period ranging from the IV to the IX EP legislature. Our dataset consists of 508 observations, 195 relating to Spanish members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and 313 to Italian ones. By relying on the recent systematization, we propose to classify MEPs’ career models – which are our dependent variable – into four types: the EU shorter-termers, the ‘stepping stone’ MEPs, the EU long-termers, and the ‘multilevel surfers’. A multinominal regression analysis was conducted to understand which political factors (party affiliation of MEPs, length of previous career, critical European Parliament [EP] elections) may have a specific impact on each career type. We found that, after the 2014 EP critical election, the probability of MEPs engaging in the EP decreases, as they are more likely to develop a short-term career model than a long-term one. In addition, previous national experience and a regional executive career are the best predictors of a multilevel career.

Digital technologies provide a novel environment for political activities and, more specifically, for interactions between citizens and political actors. The scholarly literature on these topics is flourishing. On the one hand, studies of political communication emphasise the changing nature of election campaigns and the reshaped relationship between leaders and supporters. On the other hand, the literature on political parties examines the organisational implications of such a digital shift in more detail. Against this backdrop, this study investigates the opinions and participatory attitudes of party members towards the new digital participation opportunities that their party organisations provide. To do so, we rely on original individual survey data. More specifically, we will use data derived from a survey administered to Partito Democratico members in Italy at the beginning of 2022 (approximately 4000 respondents). Precisely, we aim to identify the profiles of party members according to their (degree of) digital activities by controlling for variables such as length of membership, levels of intraparty activism, and evaluation of intraparty democracy. Moreover, we investigate the changing relationship between members and their party organisations in the new digital ecosystem.

This research investigates Russian public sentiment towards its leadership during the Russia–Ukraine war (2022–24), contrasting it with prewar approval trends (2019–21). Using Gallup data, the study challenges the notion of a straightforward ‘rally ‘round the flag’ effect, revealing a decline in leader approval post-invasion. Through regression analysis and expert interviews, factors such as war-related information exposure, perceived corruption, military confidence, and demographic variables are examined for their influence on public opinion. The findings indicate negative correlations between leader approval and military confidence/media freedom, with declines disproportionately observed among the male population, younger demographics, and individuals with higher education. This study suggests that the ‘rally ‘round the flag’ effect is limited within the Russian context, highlighting the need for nuanced approaches to understanding public opinion during geopolitical crises. It further provides insight into the relationship between media censorship, public corruption, and approval of Russian leaders. The study concludes by exploring the implications of these trends for potential postwar challenges facing the Russian administration.

In authoritarian contexts, the organization of academic knowledge and scholarly practices is often shaped by both formal policies and subtle social mechanisms, including disciplinary norms, faculty networks, and informal negotiation strategies. Within this framework, autocratic governments frequently restructure social and political science education, designating it as a ‘sensitive field’ to prioritize ideologically sanctioned topics and embedding regime-aligned imperatives within academic institutions. This paper examines Iran as a case study to explore the effects of state-led Islamization policies (of humanities and social science) on political science curricula, research orientations, and institutional practices. Drawing on a systematic analysis of undergraduate curricula and academic research agendas, with a focus on published papers in Iranian political science journals, the paper demonstrates that these transformations reduce disciplinary diversity, marginalize comparative and interdisciplinary approaches, and constrain the role of political science as a site of civic and intellectual engagement. Rather than a neutral adaptation of academic fields, the Islamization of political science in Iran represents a deliberate strategy of knowledge control aimed at aligning education with authoritarian governance. The findings highlight how such interventions narrow the possibilities for academic inquiry and reshape the societal functions of higher education, contributing to broader debates on authoritarianism, curriculum design, and the global politics of knowledge production.

This paper sets out the need for, and potential offered by, introducing social media into teaching global challenges. We argue that teaching on global challenges should involve teaching with, through, and about social media as a place of politics. This paper suggests that using social media in our teaching can help to equip students with critical digital literacies as a set of skills for engaging, understanding, and analysing digital materials. We also argue that digital spaces can offer real potential to open dialogue and thought on global challenges in our classrooms. The article presents reflections from our own classroom experiences to think through how social media offers the potential to re-work hierarchies and unpack knowledges of world politics that are taken for granted. In doing so, we are engaged with wider academic discussions on how digital pedagogies are connected to and can enact critical pedagogies. Finally, the article sets out a research agenda that can take this forward to better understand how students learn through social media and how we can best incorporate this into our teaching as a discipline.

Following the ongoing debates on (1) editorial bias and the degree of internationalization of journals in different fields and (2) internalization of (European) political science, this paper aims to descriptively analyze the composition of editorial teams and editorial boards of all 187 political science journals indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Although there are significant differences between individual journals, the analysis revealed an overwhelming Anglo-American dominance in both editorial teams (with an average of 60.6 per cent) and editorial boards (58.6 per cent) across the entire list of journals, reproducing the patterns of dominance and dependence. In addition to the global level, the analysis focuses more closely on the European environment and confirms the conclusions of some previous studies that the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region remains largely (semi-) peripheral in European and global political science. Based on previous research, we can infer that a higher level of editorial diversity would lead to increased diversity in published content, encompassing a wider range of methods, topics, theories, and cases. In conclusion, the study suggests (1) weakening possible biases by building more diversified editorial teams and boards and (2) continuing to analyze specific manifestations of bias in political science journals.

Political science concerns topics that can be highly relevant for politicians. Political science research and education offer insights that can help incumbents win elections or govern better. At the same time, the discipline provides knowledge that can be used to challenge politicians in office, for example, on how to organise mass protests or effective opposition parties. Therefore, politicians in power may have mixed feelings about the existence of political science departments. Some will encourage their establishment, while others – perhaps especially autocrats – may try to contain their presence or control their location. We study the existence and placement of political science units at universities across the world and assess the extent to which these features vary with regime type. Using large-N data on university subdivisions, we examine cross-national variation in existence and within-country variation in the location of political science departments. We find surprisingly few substantial differences along the democracy–autocracy continuum: Political science units, on average, are no more frequent in democracies. Across regime types, political science units are about equally likely to be located at public (versus private) institutions, and similarly likely to be placed at universities closer to the capital.

This article introduces the new module Gender in Contemporary Europe: Rethinking Equality and the Backlash developed for Round 11 of the European Social Survey (ESS). The module represents the first large-scale, cross-national effort to comprehensively map contemporary gender attitudes using both established and innovative measures. It captures five interrelated contemporary concepts that have rarely been included in prior cross-national surveys available for public use: gender identity, sexism (hostile, benevolent, and modern), perceived and experienced gender discrimination, the salience of gender equality as a social value, and support for gender equality policies. Pretesting and cognitive interviews conducted across a group of participating countries highlighted both the value and the complexity of measuring gender-related constructs, particularly in relation to translation challenges, perceived item bias, and social desirability effects. As we introduce the new data set, we highlight four critical challenges for gender research: bias, gendered translation, response bias, and cross-national measures of sexism. We also provide details on how the module development tackled each of these.

This paper compares how the EU and the U.S. address hybrid threats, particularly the manipulation of information as a tool to undermine democracies. Hybrid threats include tactics like cyberattacks, disinformation, and electoral interference, often by foreign or non-state actors. The EU has adopted a regulatory approach, notably through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), which impose duties on large platforms to mitigate systemic risks and enforce transparency. It combines hard and soft law tools, emphasizing human rights and co-regulation. In contrast, the U.S. prioritizes free speech, limiting government action against disinformation due to First Amendment protections. Although federal agencies play a key role in countering foreign interference, recent shifts signal a move away from fact-checking and cyber operations. The EU and U.S. face similar adversaries but diverge significantly in their strategies. This divergence may weaken democratic resilience unless efforts are coordinated and platform accountability is strengthened across both regions.

This is the introduction to a debate on Knowledge and Democratic Accountability in Policy Making. The debate is based on an EPS Roundtable event hosted at EUI.

Arising from the 2024 European Political Science (EPS) annual debate, this article examines the role of expertise in transnational governance (TNG) with a focus on political science. It explores how transnational governance reconfigures the spaces and contexts for expert engagements in global policy making and transnational administration. In these evolving spaces of jurisdiction, the democratic potential, accountability, and legitimacy of expert knowledge are not only shrouded from the Global Majority but cannot be assumed to be inevitable. The article outlines some meanings attached to TNG and suggests democratic considerations cannot be conceived or operationalised in the same ways as at nation-state levels of governance. First, TNG is a series of overlapping but fragmented transnational spheres of public sector activity as well as hybrid public-private jurisdictions where democratic principles are yet to be normalised and embedded. Second, the accountability and legitimacy of sources of expertise in the policy sectors of TNG can be counter-swayed by latent features of ‘epistocracy’, or expert rule, in transnational policy communities.

This article examines the conditions under which policy learning occurs, distinguishing between instrumental learning (evidence-based, problem-solving oriented) and political learning (strategic, shaped by institutional position and incentives). Drawing on three cases presented by Claudio Radaelli – examining bureaucrats, politicians, and experts – the paper shows that much of what occurs in policy practice is best understood as political learning: actors acquire and deploy knowledge strategically, filtered through professional hierarchies, electoral pressures, and reputational concerns. While the literature has long recognised these dynamics, the paper argues that existing accounts of political learning understate its relational and contextual character. Political learning emerges through positioned interactions within institutional and epistemic communities, rather than from individual strategic calculation alone, and from alignment with shifting background political conditions that determine what knowledge becomes actionable. Recognising this relational dimension has implications for institutional design aimed at fostering democratic accountability and integrating expertise more effectively into policy making.

This article examines the evolving role of expertise in democratic policy making amid growing political contestation and institutional strain. Drawing on insights from the annual roundtable convened by European Political Science, it explores how the legitimacy of expert knowledge is being challenged through crises of trust and rising populism. The article analyses how evidence is shaped and contested through challenges of literacy, capacity, and politics. It argues that democratising expertise requires greater inclusion alongside structural safeguards for academic independence. By reframing the use of evidence as fundamentally political rather than purely technical, the article calls for a more reflexive and accountable knowledge-policy interface.

Introduction to the Special Issue ‘Trajectories of Democratic Innovations’.

This article examines the divergent trajectories of democratic innovations in Australia and contextualises the institutional constraints on efforts to revise and improve traditional mechanisms of political participation and decision-making. Adopting a broad definition of democratic innovations as interfaces between citizens and government designed to enhance citizen participation, it distinguishes between two main types: electoral (vote-centric) and deliberative (voice-centric) innovations. While Australia is often recognised as a global pioneer in electoral innovations, experimentation with deliberative democratic reform at the federal level remains rare and sporadic. This article identifies two contextual features that help explain the limited pathways for embedding deliberative innovations into national governance: first, the adversarial and non-deliberative nature of the Westminster-inspired majoritarian system of government and, second, the enduring influence of Australia’s settler-colonial status. Together, these factors sustain a political culture that tends towards non-listening. The article suggests ways to counter these factors by drawing insights and inspiration from creative community innovations emerging in Australia.

Democratic innovations have gained popularity in Finland, especially during the last 15 years, at the national and subnational level. However, research on Finnish democratic innovations is still fragmented, focusing on isolated methods, case studies, and experiments. Our article aims to provide a first comprehensive outlook of the diffusion of democratic innovations in Finland. From the 1980s onwards, we identify five legislative milestones that illustrate the gradual institutionalisation of various innovations. Furthermore, we trace the historical roots of three sets of innovations – direct democratic instruments, participatory budgeting, and deliberative mini-publics – and describe their scope and patterns of dissemination. Our inspection shows that democratic innovations have created truly novel channels for citizen influence, but their impact varies greatly. While policymakers still have doubts of citizens’ competences, our analysis suggests a growing role for democratic innovations in Finnish politics, supported by their institutionalisation as well as pragmatic adaptation.

This paper traces and assesses the trajectories of democratic innovations (DIs) in Germany across levels of governance and over time since 1990, providing novel and original data. We focus on three types of DIs that have been applied in Germany: direct democratic instruments, participatory budgeting, and deliberative mini-publics (DMPs). DIs proliferated differently across the different levels of governance (local, state, and federal), with shifting peaks in popularity and differing evolutions in process design and regulations. Going beyond description, this paper discusses the trajectories of DIs by applying a theoretical framework based, firstly, on Elstub and Escobar’s concept of DIs as providing opportunities for citizens (in participation, deliberation, and influence) and, secondly, on Warren’s system-oriented approach on democratic functions (these being empowered inclusion, collective will-formation, and collective decision-making). This framework provides a useful tool for analysing how the trajectories of DIs in Germany have affected citizens’ opportunities. Combined, these trajectories show a movement towards opportunities for inclusive participation, deliberation, and will-formation of a few citizens in DMPs, rather than opportunities for empowered participation or influence on political agendas and decisions.

Depending on what levels of government and actors in a political system one focuses upon, democratic innovations might seem thriving or waning. This emerges clearly when looking at the main trajectories of democratic innovation in Italy. Compared to other liberal democracies, at the national level, Italy is a laggard; yet, a more dynamic landscape of democratic innovations exists at the local level. Some regions have drafted pioneering legislation institutionalising participatory and deliberative practices and numerous councils have adopted participatory innovations, early and consistently over time. Going beyond institutions, social movements have also been very influential with activists developing their own democratic innovation repertoires, which was especially clear in the movement for the commons. Positive and negative trajectories of democratic innovation may coexist across different actors (e.g., governments and civil society.) and levels of government in Italy. However, when these actors enter in contact with each other, state institutions might use democratic innovations against democratic engagement. We reflect on the implications of this situation for future trajectories of democratic innovation in Italy.

How can democratic systems connect deliberation to mass participation? Recent debates on deliberative democracy have sharpened this question by highlighting the tension between the deliberative quality often associated with small-scale forums and the democratic imperative of broad citizen inclusion. This article addresses that challenge by examining democratic innovations in Latin America that enable participation at large scale without relinquishing core deliberative properties. Drawing on the LATINNO dataset and focusing on two recurrent types of democratic innovations – multilevel policymaking and participatory planning – the article develops an analytical framework centered on three design features: open participation, sequential deliberation, and institutionalized collaboration. I argue that, when combined, these features allow large numbers of citizens and civil society organizations to enter deliberative processes while sustaining core deliberative properties such as iterative justification and preference refinement, and strengthening the prospects that policymaking institutions will take up the resulting outputs. The comparison shows that multilevel policymaking and participatory planning constitute two distinct routes to large-scale deliberation: the former relies more strongly on cumulative sequencing across territorial or deliberative stages, while the latter operates through the integration of heterogeneous inputs across multiple spaces and modalities. By bringing Latin American democratic innovations into dialogue with contemporary deliberative theory, the article expands the range of institutional designs through which deliberation can be connected to the mass public.

The Carnation Revolution in Portugal marked the transition from a dictatorial regime to democracy in the mid-1970s. As military and social forces took centre stage in the ‘Revolutionary Ongoing Process’, the establishment of a Western liberal democracy was accompanied by the country’s participation in a new international context. In parallel, growing citizen disaffection towards political institutions has become apparent, with attempts to expand democracy through multiple practices over the past two decades. Recognising the need to systematise knowledge on democratic innovations through a genetic approach, this paper critically discusses exemplary practices associated with emerging patterns of participation across three main historical stages. The main argument of this paper is that a situated understanding of democratic innovations allows us to view them as ‘children of their time’ that have contributed differently to the inclusionary character of Portuguese democracy, while demonstrating the capacity to incorporate lessons from the past.