There is a shortage of comprehensive reports about the development of political studies in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) (Klingemann Reference Klingemann2008, 272). Although there are unique differences among states and individual universities, several trends and tendencies can be distinguished. This article provides an overview of how political science evolved in CEE from 1990 to 2020, with particular emphasis on changes in the thematic focus of academic programs, institutions, and political science research.

Before 1989, political science departments in CEE depended on the official communist authorities, which often formed the intellectual and ideological base of those regimes. Academic autonomy, however, developed in some CEE states. The 1990–2000 interest in classical, non-Marxist political science also was fueled by democratization processes. Both autonomization and democratization were hindered by several factors, including the composition of faculty and underinvestment in the public sector during the economic-transformation period. At the same time, US- and EU-based private and public institutions supported the development of social science teaching in the region (Baskerville Reference Baskerville1997, 35–36). As research into publication themes in CEE in the 1990s reveals, studies on political regimes from the (neo-)institutional perspective were predominant (Schneider, Bochsler, and Chiru Reference Schneider, Bochsler and Chiru2013, 131).

The first decade of the 2000s added the “EUropean shift” with the main focus on politics and policies of the European Union. In pre-accession CEE, it was estimated that about 160,000 students were enrolled in political science programs taught at almost 170 universities by 4,000 academic teachers (Goldsmith and Goldsmith Reference Goldsmith and Goldsmith2010, 62). This is almost twice as many “per university” as in the Western part of the continent (Klingemann Reference Klingemann2008, 275–276), usually with a much smaller community of teachers. These numbers can be explained by the general boom in university education and the popularity of social science in educational offerings (being less resource intensive and, consequently, more affordable from the perspective of universities and the system, especially compared to the natural sciences), as well as numerous private higher-education institutes and foreign establishments (e.g., the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary; the Anglo-American University in Prague, Czechia; and the College of Europe in Natolin, Poland). In terms of research areas, most political science faculty members focused on questions related to policy making, integration processes, and economic development (Schneider, Bochsler, and Chiru Reference Schneider, Bochsler and Chiru2013, 132). At the didactic level, the introduction of the Bologna regulations accelerated the process of change. On the one hand, they embodied the Europeanization of the higher-education system; on the other, and together with the Erasmus program, they enabled the internationalization of teaching and studying. An interesting phenomenon occurred at that time—namely, the establishment of dual-degree programs, mainly with partner schools from the Western part of the continent. An example is the political science master’s program offered at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland, with the European studies program offered at European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder), Germany (Beichelt and Jańczak Reference Beichelt, Jańczak and Gueldry2010).

At the end of the 2000s, the popularity of political science study programs began to decline, again becoming a niche in most countries of the region (Krauz-Mozer et al. Reference Krauz-Mozer, Kułakowska, Borowiec, Ścigaj, Krauz-Mozer, Kułakowska, Borowiec and Ścigaj2018). Political science turned toward national and international security studies. Both were originally a part of political science but, in various states of the region, they have been promoted recently to an independent academic discipline due to growing domestic and foreign instability (Lutostański Reference Lutostański2018). Security studies became the main point of interest for political science scholars and students. This tendency was strengthened by the immigration crisis and current COVID-related developments. Many political scientists, especially those in the field of international relations, concentrated on Asian (usually East Asian) studies, which again reflected students’ demands and growing interrelations with states from that region. At the same time, in 2010–2020, the conservative swing in the region created a new environment of “democracy under stress” that has caused tensions in relations with Brussels. Some scholars reacted and focused on research into the “autocratic shift.” Current trends also allow for predicting future developments, with the previously mentioned growing role of study programs providing skills and knowledge that are in demand on the labor market. Furthermore, a widening in the spectrum of the tools of control that the central authorities will attempt to exercise over universities may influence the direction of didactics and research. We also can expect further challenges resulting from the internationalization of the student community, especially the increase of students from the Middle East, Central and Eastern Asia, Africa, Belarus, and Ukraine.

In this context, further aspects regarding the development of political science in CEE can be determined, primarily regional interconnections. In 1994, a group of political scientists from Lithuania, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, and Croatia established the Central European Political Science Association (CEPSA). Its goal was to “develop links among political scientists from post-communist countries who were making efforts to establish political science in their respective countries” (CEPSA 2018) and to strengthen the regional academic identity. At the same time, many schools—especially private institutions and those operating in small states—strengthened cooperation with their Western partners. Moreover, the regional focus of research (Schneider, Bochsler, and Chiru Reference Schneider, Bochsler and Chiru2013) was reflected in articles published in major political science journals, a focus that dominated over global issues (e.g., Środkowoeuropejskie Studia Polityczne/Central European Political Studies and the Slovak Journal of Political Sciences). Numerous studies also confirmed the marginal role of comparative politics in the region (e.g., Eisfeld and Pal Reference Eisfeld and Pal2010; Schneider, Bochsler, and Chiru Reference Schneider, Bochsler and Chiru2013), as well as the focus on their own state by the majority of authors. Due to limited resources, international coauthorship and in-depth research were rare, especially because the latter requires advanced data collection. In a similar vein, methodological excellence often was neglected. Yet another issue has been and continues to be the search for a disciplinary identity among political scientists in CEE (Krauz-Mozer et al. Reference Krauz-Mozer, Kułakowska, Borowiec, Ścigaj, Krauz-Mozer, Kułakowska, Borowiec and Ścigaj2018). Political scientists endeavor to respond to new challenges related to the changing political and social realities (e.g., digitization), as well as evolving relations with Western European political scientists. This is especially true because CEE scholars and institutions continue to be underrepresented in international academic events and decision-making processes led by actors from the Western part of the continent (Ghica Reference Ghica, Boncourt, Engeli and Garzia2020).