Workshop 1 – Party system change in Scandinavia: From centrist to polarized?
Dr. Christoph Arndt, lecturer in Comparative Politics, University of Reading. Email: C.Arndt@reading.ac.uk
Dr. Niklas Bolin, Associate professor in political science, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Mid Sweden University. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Scholars used to view Nordic party systems as centrist but like in other parts of Europe, new parties have emerged near the poles. This development has put traditional centrist parties (Agrarians, Christian Democrats, and Liberals) under pressure that used to form important parts of the Scandinavian party systems. Their pivotal position affected government formation for decades. Despite the variation in their historical origin and ideology, the Scandinavian centrist parties have long relied on small core constituencies defined by social characteristics or religious beliefs, but they have come under pressure as the party systems have become more polarized.
Some parties disappeared from parliament (Finnish Liberals, Danish Centre Democrats). In Norway and Sweden, centrist parties barely passed the electoral threshold. But we also observe remarkable variation: The Centre Parties in Norway and Sweden saw unforeseeable comebacks at the ballots although they chose different strategies to survive.
We lack topical research about the centre of the Scandinavian party system, including the fate of parties that used to occupy it. The overall goal of the workshop is therefore to study party system change in Scandinavia with a focus on the role of the centrist parties. This may include focus on increased electoral volatility, decline of core constituencies, polarization around new issues such as globalization, immigration, the EU, environment, party organization, and party interaction – including government participation.
We welcome historical, qualitative, case study-based as well as quantitative statistical approaches, and would particularly welcome comparative studies. The workshop targets established and upcoming scholars of party politics, party organization, public opinion and electoral behaviour in the Nordic countries.
We would also welcome a limited number of papers that look on the fate of similar parties outside Scandinavia or compare them with their Scandinavian counterparts.
Jonas Stein. In the Centre of What.
Kristoffer Jutvik. The causal relationship between seat majorities for mainstream political parties and refugee reception policy.
Kristian Kongshøj. Redistribution, not immigration? Explaining the collapse of the Danish People’s Party and the Social Democratic comeback in the 2019 election.
Anders Ejrnæs & Carina S. Bischoff. The dynamics of political polarization over immigration issues: exploring the interplay between party positions and public attitudes.
Niklas Bolin. Are there (m)any liberal parties in Sweden?
Christoph Arndt & Flemming Juul Christiansen. Centre Parties in an Age of New Cleavages.
Workshop 2 – Improving on perfection? Democratic innovations in Nordic democracies
Henrik Serup Christensen, Åbo Akademi University, Finland. Email: email@example.com
Jenny de Fine Licht, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Staffan Himmelroos, University of Helsinki, Finland. Email: email@example.com
Democracy today faces extraordinary challenges that call into question the endurance of several established democracies. At the same time, the Nordic democracies are frequently touted as global leaders when it comes to economic performance, corruption, trust, and freedom of the press. It may thus seem like democratic reforms in these seemingly near-perfect democracies are at best unnecessary and at worst detrimental when disrupting existing institutional structures can cause more harm than good.
In this workshop, we therefore explore the potential for improving on perfection by increasing possibilities for citizen participation in political decision-making. Democracies around the world, including the Nordic countries, have experimented with deliberative and participatory mechanisms that aim to improve democracy. The impact of different deliberative and participatory innovations is, however, likely to be context-dependent and therefore sensitive to the circumstances under which they are introduced and the stated aims they are meant to help achieve.
We aim to contribute to this research agenda by focusing on the impact of deliberative and participatory innovations in the context of the Nordic democracies at both national and local levels of decision-making. It is particularly relevant to examine what types of innovations may help improve democracy and under what circumstances they can do so. While we welcome any contribution on these topics, we are particularly interested in efforts that aim to examine the mechanisms underpinning the success and failure of deliberative and participatory mechanisms.
The research on deliberative democracy and democratic innovations is characterized by a fruitful dialogue between more empirically and more theoretically oriented approaches and this is something we hope to continue in this workshop.
Papers for the workshop may be written in any Scandinavian language and English. We will decide on the working language of the workshop after deadline to ensure that all potential participants can be included.
Marina Lindell & Kim Strandberg. Personality and deliberation.
Anni Jäntti, Kaisa Kurkela, Pauliina Lehtonen and Lotta-Maria Sinervo. Democratic innovations as a question of municipal resources.
Sissel Hovik & Sveinung Legard. Justice through citizen participation – a case study of Grønland-Tøyen ABI in Oslo.
Mikko Leino and Juha Ylisalo. Expert hearings in mini-publics: How does the field of expertise influence deliberation and its outcomes?
Valgerður Björk Pálsdóttir & Stefanía Óskarsdóttir. Deliberative polling in the Context of Constitutional Changes in Iceland.
Pontus Lund. Who talks and who listens? Analysing citizen dialogues in a rural context.
Staffan Himmelroos & Henrik Serup Christensen. The meaning of opinion change? The relationship between subjective and objective measures of opinion change in an experimental deliberative forum.
Nanuli Silagadze. Political Parties and Referendums in Eastern Europe: Comparing Cues and Attitudes.
Janette Huttunen. Direct or deliberative young people? Support for the two forms of democracy in Finland.
Ann-Catrin Kristianssen. Municipal interreligious councils as a democratic innovation? Studying the innovative potential of hybrid organizations in a polarized society.
Jenny de Fine Licht & Peter Esaiasson. When interests collide – How politicians perceive hard decisions.
Workshop 3 – Changes in democratic spaces – Institutional shifts in Nordic Higher Education in the 2000s
Mikko Poutanen, PhD & post-doc researcher at Tampere University, Faculty of Management and Business, Finland. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Rómulo Pinheiro, Professor at University of Adger (UiA), Norway. Email: email@example.com
Tuomas Tervasmäki, PhD researcher at Tampere University, Faculty of Education and Culture, Finland. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
In the 2000s, Nordic states have profiled themselves at the forefront of knowledge economies, utilizing their public sector universities to train a workforce savvy in global competition. However, in doing so, higher education policy has been reconceptualized as a vehicle of economic policy. This reconceptualization has also had ramifications when it comes to the internal operational logics of institutions of higher education – universities. Knowledge economy is directly linked to knowledge capitalism, and further to academic capitalism.
As such, increased competitiveness, managerialist operational practices, organizational mergers and project-based employment have rapidly brought Nordic universities closer to their Anglo-American counterparts in terms of operational philosophy both promoted as public policy in higher education and autonomously adopted by institutions. For example, looking to profile themselves both nationally and internationally, three Finnish higher education mergers, one specifically requiring legislative changes for the purposes of creating a university that is “world-class” flagship entrepreneurial university, have all taken place in the 2000s.
But does this serve public policy goals more than the staff or students of the institutions? Is the value of education being reduced to its instrumental capacity? Is the democratic space within universities threatened by a new brand of administrative autonomy that narrows stakeholder participation if favor of “strategic leadership”? And if so, what kind of viable ideas of academia and alternative forms of organization could be formulated?
The workshop discusses new operational logics of Nordic higher education institutions, and how public policy influences these developments. Workshop participants are invited to present papers offering insights relating to a single or many Nordic nations, evaluating the broader consequences of institutional shifts in higher education.
Mikko Poutanen. Fracking the university? Sense of alienation in academia
Tuomas Tervasmäki. Channeling desire through fantasmatic narratives. The affective rhetoric of Finnish higher education policy.
Aleksandar Avramović. Commanding heights of higher education and academic labor: Tensions and interplay between higher education governance reforms and academic roles.
Rómulo Pinheiro, Aleksandar Avramovic & Michael Assante. Assessing Research Valorization: An Organizational Perspective and the view from the Nordics.
Aleksandar Avramović, Elias Pekkola, Rómulo Pinheiro & Lars Geschwind. Gender and the Marketisation of Higher Education: A Nordic Tale.
Andrea Hjálmsdóttir. “Yes, there is a great demand of productivity”. On gendered experiences of academics in Iceland.
Dominik Antonowicz, Tanja Klenk, Rómulo Pinheiro, Lars Geschwind & Anna Pokorska. Taking women on boards: A comparative analysis of public policies in Germany, Norway, Poland and Sweden in regards to gender balance in university governance.
Stefan Lundborg and Lars Geschwind. When Push Comes to Shove: Strategic Positioning in Pandemic Responses at Swedish Higher Education Institutions During 2020–2021.
Bernard Böhm. The strategic repositioning of merged Higher Education Institutions: A Business Model analysis of four European Higher Education Institutions.
Kimmo Alajoutsijärvi, Kerttu Kettunen & Rómulo Pinheiro. Emergence of institutional competition: The case of business school field.
Thor Bech Schrøder. A safeguard against mistrust? Determinants of trust in scientists in Norway.
Workshop 5 – Taxation and state-society relations in a comparative perspective
Johanna Söderström, Department of Government, Uppsala University. Email: email@example.com
Anne Mette Kjær, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Anna Persson, Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg. Email: email@example.com
Lise Rakner, Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
The aim of the workshop is to further debates on taxation practices and its political consequences, particularly in the Global South. Raising revenues is central to state capacity, plays into statebuilding processes, and shapes the state’s relationship with its citizens. Yet, current research has only recently begun to pay attention to taxation practices, their origins and consequences. Practices include tax policies and strategies adopted by the public authorities to collect tax, including negotiations, exemptions, as well as how citizens, interest groups, companies respond, resist and engage with the tax authorities. While taxation has received a lot of attention in the Global North, it is becoming increasingly relevant to study this topic with a focus on the Global South, as foreign aid is declining and pressure to deliver on state services is increasing. The 2019 Skytte prize winner Margaret Levi has in her work helped us understand why citizens accept state coercion, highlighting the importance of studying legitimacy and consent, and with this workshop we wish to stress the importance of studying taxation and how state-society relations are shaped by this. We are interested in papers which study both the motivations of individual citizens, interest groups, tax paying practices and the consequences of taxation for citizens, as well as how these processes are dealt with from the perspective of the state.
Papers are invited which deal with these issues theoretically as well as papers which are empirically grounded. We are particularly interested in papers which take on a comparative perspective. We welcome a diversity of methodological approaches, and we encourage submission from both early career scholars to established scholars. The language of the workshop is English, to in particular welcome international scholars working in the Nordic countries.
Keywords: taxation, Global South, citizens, statebuilding, democratization
Jessica Gottlieb, Adrienne LeBas, and Janica Magat. Downstream effects of Lagos tax experiment on political participation.
Samuel Sharp, Stephanie Sweet & Alina Rocha Menocal. Civil Society Engagement in Tax Reform.
Anne Mette Kjær,Marianne S. Ulriksen, & Ane Karoline Bak. When states negotiate revenue: Findings on the mechanisms of revenue bargain.
Camille Pellerin &Johanna Söderström. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s’? Making Sense of Tax Non-Compliance in Ethiopia.
Lise Rakner & Johanna Söderström. Imagining Solidarity – tax compliance dilemmas in Namibia.
Morten Bøås & Odd-Helge Fjeldstad. Taxation in countries with weak statehood: the missing link in the state building puzzle?
Rasmus Broms. Boxholm Tea Party: Taxation and Voter Turnout in a Mature Democracy.
Ryhor Nizhnikau. Tax or represent? Zelenskiy’s tax reform in Ukraine after the 2019 anti-establishment electoral “revolution”.
Ane Karoline Bak. Brokered or broken fiscal contracts? The case of Senegal’s informal sectors.
Frida Boräng, Anna Persson and Elise Tengs. The Fiscal Contract Revisited: How Taxation by Weak and Patronage-Based States Shapes Citizens’ Demand for Public Goods and Democratic Inclusion.
Workshop 6 – Administrative burdens in citizen-state interactions
Martin Bækgaard Professor, Department of Political science, Aarhus University. Email: MartinB@ps.au.dk
Helena Olofsdotter Stensöta, Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg. Email: Helena.email@example.com
All across the world, people experience burdens in their daily interactions with government and citizen servants. People applying for welfare benefits often have to fill in complicated forms to prove eligibility, have to show up at public offices to apply and re-apply to prove continued eligibility, face long waiting times and uncertainty about the decisions made by public authorities.
The concept administrative burden refers to a mix of learning costs, compliance, and psychological costs that individuals experience in these interactions (Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey 2015; Heinrich 2016; Herd and Moynihan 2018). Citizens’ experiences of burdens in their encounters with the state are likely to have important societal and human consequences. Stress, stigmatization, and reduced take-up of welfare benefits are among the likely detrimental effects of administrative burden. In light of the immense importance of administrative burdens to millions of people’s lives on a daily basis, it is surprising how little we know about under what circumstances public authorities impose burdens on its citizens and about the conditions that give rise to experiences of burden. A fine-grained understanding of the causes and consequences of administrative burden, therefore, should be central to the study of public administration and policy.
Elizabeth Bell, Ani Ter Mkrtchyan & Wesley Wehde. How do Ideological Beliefs Shape Perceptions of Administrative Burden? An Examination of Street-level Bureaucrats.
Sebastian Jilke & Elizabeth Bell. Racial Discrimination in Charter Schools: A Large-Scale Field Experiment Exploring the Causal Mechanism of Discrimination.
Ylva Wallinder & Ida Seing. When the client becomes her own case manager: Responsibilization and Management Reforms in a Public Employment Service.
Julian Christensen & Lene Aarøe. Do the facts matter? Investigating the effects of factual information and single case descriptions on burden tolerance among politicians and their voters.
Jonas Krogh Madsen, Kim Sass Mikkelsen, Julian Christensen & Martin Bækgaard. Do experiences of administrative burden reduce citizens’ commitment to civic norms and duties?
Pierre-Marc Daigneault & Mathieu Ouimet. Let me carry that administrative burden for you: Designing an intervention to increase the take-up of a social program in Québec.
Donald. P. Moynihan. Burdens, Sludge, Ordeals, Red Tape, Oh My! An Incomplete Guide to the Scholarly Study of Frictions.
Pamela Herd & Donald P. Moynihan. Racializing the Administrative State: How Administrative Burdens Reinforce Racial Inequality.
Janne Kalucza & Fabian Hattke.. Under the Skin: Physiological Measures of Administrative Burdens in Bureaucratic Encounters.
Rik Peeters & Arjan Widlak. The Administrative Burdens of Automated Decision-Making: About Data-Sharing, Network Decisions, Administrative Errors and Learning Costs.
Matthias Döring. Gatekeeping the Citizen? Administrative Burden from a Dyadic Perspective of Public Encounters.
Kanerva Kuokkanen. Citizens’ descriptions and views of administrative burden in Finnish Internet discussions.
Ulf Hjelmar. Integrated services for vulnerable citizens: Is this leading to less bureaucracy?
Borbala Kovacs. Inequalities in claims-making in the Romanian welfare state: The Role of Employers.
Simon Calmar Andersen & Jesper Asring Hansen. Should all Residents be Treated Equally? Heterogenous Effects of Coproduction Interventions.
Helena Olofsdotter Stensöta. How does the green state work? Program theory and citizens’ motives for co-producing green politics or not.
Jonas Larsson Taghizadeh & Per Adman. Can the presence of public officials belonging to minority groups prevent ethnic discrimination?
Cheryl Camillo. Understanding, Reducing, and Eliminating Administrative Burdens through the Modeling of Citizen Client Pathways.
Cynthia Golembeski. Causes and Consequences of Administrative Burdens Undermining the Constitutional Guarantee to Health Care While Incarcerated.
Helle Ørsted Nielsen & Vibeke Lehmann Nielsen. ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS IN INTERACTIONS BETWEEN BUSINESSES AND REGULATORY AGENCIES.
Workshop 8 – Trust within Governance
Tina Øllgaard Bentzen, Post Doc at Roskilde University, Denmark. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Christian Lo, Senior Researcher at the Nordland Research institute (NRI), Norway. Email: email@example.com
Recently, the role of trust in the public institutions of the Nordic welfare states has been politicised and entered the public debate in a previously unprecedented form. At both national and local levels, and across different governmental sectors, political reforms that explicitly emphasize trust as an alternative approach to public management have emerged as a trend in the Scandinavian countries (see e.g. Aspøy 2016, Bentzen 2018).
While the main focus on trust within the public management literature has traditionally been on the importance of citizens’ trust towards the public sector (Christensen and Lægreid 2005, Van de Walle 2017), trust within the public sector and among civil servants working together in their efforts to handle complex challenges is receiving growing attention in the wake of NPM reforms (e.g. Bouckaert, 2012). The growing number of ‘wicked’ and complex problems require the public sector to heighten collaboration both internally and with actors outside formal organizations in order to develop new, innovative, solutions (Osborne 2006, Torfing et al. 2012). This aspiration, it is argued, requires trust in public employees, who must be delegated a greater degree of autonomy in order to flexibly handle these new complex tasks (Edelenbos and Eshuis 2012).
The debate on the development of public management in a post-NPM perspective has also drawn renewed interest to the social mechanisms that relate vertical trust within organizations to horizontal trust between welfare professionals who are, arguably, becoming increasingly dependent on negotiation in interorganizational networks to solve societal challenges (Torfing et al. 2012).
In this workshop we invite scholars to present research papers which explore aspects of trust within Governance. This could cover studies of institutional reforms aimed at enhancing trust, aspects of trust between peers within the public sector, trust between leaders and employees or relations between trust and control in management systems. However, papers addressing other aspects of trust within public administration are also welcomed.
Language: English. If all papers are written and presented by Scandinavian speaking scholars, we will use the Scandinavian languages.
Jaakko Hillo. More than Fun and Games? A natural experiment on ice hockey, national identity and trust in political institutions.
Louise Bringselius. Trust-Based Public Management: A New Management Philosophy for the Public Sector.
Tina Øllgaard Bentzen and Louise Bringselius. The Trust reforms of Denmark & Sweden.
Sule Tomkinson. The role of trust in governance networks: new adjudicators and administrative justice.
Ulf Hjelmar, Mads Leth Jakobsen and Niels Grund Petersen. Governance built on trust and local autonomy: A systematic review of Scandinavian experiences.
Mattias Örnerheim. Confronting institutional boundaries in cooperation between the Police Authority and the Civil Society.
Bente Bjørnholt and Niels Bjørn Grund Petersen. Trust as mediator of performance information use across hierarchical actors.
Linda Nyberg. Alienation and trust-based government in public service organizations.
Bente Bjørnholt and Marie Østergaard Møller. Trust, cooperation and leadership.
Malin Kronqvist Håård. The co-operation between government actors and municipal actors in a state-initiated school improvement initiative seen from the municipal actors’ perspective.
Christian Lo. Trust and Distrust in Child Welfare Networks.
Heidi Haukelien. Trust and distrust in complex institutions – a generative perspective.
Halvard Vike. Belief, reciprocity, trust- and distrust.
Workshop 9 – Teaching for citizenship and democracy
Maria Jansson, Associate professor of political science, Stockholm University. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Nora E. H. Mathé, PhD, lecturer in social studies education, University of Oslo. Email: email@example.com
In the Scandinavian countries and other democracies, schools are a key institution responsible for preparing young people for living a life based on democratic values and practices. This goal is included in national educational policy in most countries. Educational institutions are, on the one hand, to socialize young people into accepting democratic values and ways of action and, on the other, to help them develop an independent assessment of how democratic governance works in practice. Schools are, therefore, to “sell” the idea that democracy is the best form of governance while also encouraging young people to have a critical or sceptical perspective on the practical application of this best form of governance. Research shows that these two goals are not always compatible, and, for various reasons, increasingly difficult to achieve in classroom settings. In schools as well as in higher education, the proliferation of ideas that challenge core democratic ideals such as equality gives rise to different teaching dilemmas when voiced in the classroom. While higher education has no obligation to “sell” democracy, nor to foster students’ democratic skills, academia rests firmly on ideals of equality and non-discrimination. Societal polarization, lower levels of societal trust, growing societal diversity, segregation, and other developments (e.g. limited resources) thus create challenges for teaching related to democracy at all levels.
This workshop explores the challenges and tensions historically and currently involved in teaching democracy at all levels. It welcomes theoretically- and empirically-driven papers on the role of policy-making, societal trends, teacher education, citizenship education theory, schools, teachers, and students on all levels of education (from pre-school to higher education) in teaching democracy and practicing it in educational systems. Other relevant topics are also welcome.
Keywords: Democracy, Citizenship, Teaching, Education, Policy.
Language: Papers written in any of the Nordic languages and in English will be considered. As a general rule the presentations will be in English.
Göran Bostedt and Linda Eriksson. ‘Living’ and ‘learning democracy’ through pupil influence. Policy changes in the Swedish school system.
Maria Jansson. Teaching and understanding ‘trust’. An intersectional approach to participatory action research.
Kjetil Børhaug. Demokratiforståing og deltaking.
Nora Hesby Mathé. Democracy theory over the last decades: Major contributions and their didactic implications for social science education in secondary school.
Linda Ekström and Göran Bergström. Rektorerna och likvärdigheten.
Patrik Johansson and Johan Sandahl. Civic Consciousness – Theorizing the relational dimension of historical consciousness.
Kerenina K. Dansholm. Citizenship (medborgerskap) understandings and youth.
Hueyn Su Seo. From a Standard Mode of Representative Democracy to a More Participatory and Young Democracy? Citizenship and Democracy Education in Finland.
Workshop 10 – Parliaments and Governments
Martin Ejnar Hansen, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Brunel University London. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Thomas Persson, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Uppsala University. Email: Thomas.Persson@statsvet.uu.se
The workshop has a broad focus on parliaments and governments. The Scandinavian countries are often central for comparative analyses of parliaments and governments. However, it is still not entirely clear whether the research developed on these countries travel well outside of the Scandinavian context.
The increased fragmentation and polarisation of European party systems creates new challenges for parliaments and governments. How do new parties work in parliaments? How is the relationship between government and opposition parties affected by this development? Are there changes in stability in relation to committees and other parliamentary institutions? Are minority governments using new tools to navigate these challenges? What is the impact on government formation and duration?
All topics which fall within parliaments and governments are welcome. We have a pluralistic approach to methodology and theory and the overall goal is to create a space for researchers interested in parliaments and governments to meet and discuss their research. The workshop is open for everyone with an interest in parliaments and governments, both for those focusing on the Scandinavian countries and for those scholars with a different geographical focus.
Eliton Meka. How much opposition? Government-opposition dynamics at different phases of European integration.
Nataliya Demyanenko & Pierfrancesco La Mura. Gamson-Shapley Laws: a Formal Approach to Parliamentary Coalition Formation.
Thomas Sedelius. Formally Constrained but Highly Influential Presidents’ Going-Public Tactics in Semi-Presidential Democracies.
Maria Thürk. Policy making under minority governments: the bargaining success of parliamentary parties in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
Indridi Indridason, William Bianco, Gyung-Ho Jeong, Christopher Kam & Regina Smyth. Reassessing Legislative Bargaining and Government Duration In Parliamentary Systems.
Andréa Cullen. The impact of independent politicians on a parliamentary democracy.
Burtejin Zorigt & Miroslav Nemcok. Satisfaction with Democracy as a Two Stage Process: How Descriptive Representation Shapes Regime Evaluations among Female Election Losers.
Hallbera West. Parliamentary control: How to move beyond partisan behavior?
Bjørn Erik Rasch. Investitute voting and government formation.
Kristoffer Kolltveit, Jostein Askim & Rune Karlsen. Curb your rightwing-populism: The Norwegian Progress party in power.
Thomas Persson & Christer Karlsson. To Oppose or Not to Oppose? Explaining Oppositional Behaviour in European Legislatures.
Martin Ejnar Hansen. Conflict Dimensions in Legislatures with No Formal Party Groups.
Jakob Schwörer. Less populist in power? Online communication of populist parties in coalition governments.
Queralt Tornafoch Chirveches. Government-opposition dynamics in times of COVID19: the case of Denmark.
Workshop 11 – Politics as a battlefield – understanding intraparty competition
Peter Söderlund, Åbo Akademi University. Email: email@example.com
Audrey Vandeleene, Lund University/Ghent University. Email: Audrey.Vandeleene@UGent.be
The intraparty dimension of political competition refers to how individual candidates compete against fellow partisans. Intraparty competition can be as fierce as interparty competition. Although scholars have over the past decade begun to pay more attention to intraparty competition, there is still much unexplored territory – particularly in proportional representation systems where candidates compete against each other under open or flexible lists, but also among non-PR systems. Competition at the intraparty dimension can take different forms: copartisans compete for nominations to elected office, for positions on the electoral list, and for personal votes at the general election stage. Parties and voters hold decision-making power that stimulates competition among (aspirant) candidates.
This workshop invites papers that address different aspects of intraparty competition and that enhance our understanding of the mechanisms that shape competition within parties. What are the patterns of intraparty competition across and within countries and how can we explain these differences? Contributions may focus on any of the three central actors of the representative chain: parties, candidates and voters. First, parties differ in terms of how they go about to nominate candidates – both in terms of selection procedure and selection criteria – and coordinate the vote. Second, candidates may use different strategies to secure nomination and win personal votes. Third, voters use different decision cues when they evaluate individual candidates and cast preference votes. Both theoretical and empirical submissions are welcome to the workshop. Equal priority will be given to comparative studies and case studies. Papers and discussions will be carried out in English.
Helene Helboe Pedersen. Intra-party competition on social media.
Jochen Rehmert. Holding MPs accountable: Behavioral explanations for incumbent deselection.
Gert-Jan Put and Jérémy Dodeigne. The role of candidate location in intra-party competition: A comparative investigation of preferential-list PR elections
Bjarki Gronfeldt, Aleksandra Cichocka, Aleksandra Cislak & Madeleine Wyatt. With Friends Like That, Who Needs Enemies? Implications of Partisan Narcissism for Intraparty Processes, Politicians’ Skills and Performance.
Sigrid Van Trappen. To adapt or not to adapt, that is the question. An experimental test of whether the selection of ethnic minority candidates is affected by interparty diffusion.
Dan Schmit. Analysing intra-party preferences through ballot samples.
David Arter. “When your Worst Opponents are MPs in your Own Party in your Own District”: Intra-Partisan Defeats in a Candidate-Centred Electoral System.
Nicholas Aylott & Niklas Bolin. Change Comes Quickly: Leader Selection in the Swedish Liberal Party in 2019.
Felix von Nostitz. The competitiveness of intra-party selection processes: A comparative perspective.
Veikko Isotalo, Åsa von Schoultz & Mikko Mattila. Effect of candidate’s ideological position on candidate success in presence of electoral complexity in OLPR systems.
Daria Boratyn, Jarosław Flis & Dariusz Stolicki. The Impact of the Electoral System on Intraparty Competition for Personal Votes.
Peter Söderlund & Åsa von Schoultz. Trajectories of the personal vote under high levels of intraparty competition.
Audrey Vandeleene. The Why of Candidate Selection. Which Criteria Do Belgian Green Party Selectors’ Use When Choosing Candidates?
Robin Devroe, Sigrid Van Trappen and Bram Wauters. The gendered nature of ethnic minority candidate nomination: do external selection motives matter? Experimental evidence from Flanders (Belgium).
Workshop 12 – Political communication in a new media environment
Kim Andersen, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark / University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Erik Knudsen, University of Bergen, Norway. Email: Erik.Knudsen@uib.no
Mediated communication plays a vital role in politics. Politicians reach out for potential voters through the media, and citizens obtain information about politics through the media, guiding their political opinions and behaviour. However, the media environment in which these central democratic processes take place is undergoing fundamental changes.
Over the past decades, new technologies, like the Internet and social media, have enabled political communication in new forms and on new platforms. The use of traditional news media, like newspapers and TV, is declining, and anti-establishment voices, such as partisan alternative news sites, are growing in popularity. These changes have paved the way for a fragmented and individualized media environment characterized by selective exposure, algorithmic filtering, targeted advertising, and misinformation. This situation has led to concerns of the well-being of our democracies.
In light of this development, this workshop aims at bringing together new insights on political communication from political science and communication research in the Nordic countries. We welcome scholars with an interest in political communication, political rhetoric and communication strategies, interpersonal political communication, political content in the media, and related topics to participate in the workshop.
The Nordic countries have a strong tradition of interdisciplinary political communication research anchored in political science and communication research. This workshop will continue the successful political communication workshops at previous NoPSA meetings, with the aim of bringing political science and communication research closer together. Although the workshop takes a starting point in the Nordic countries, it is explicitly open for international scholars. The working language of the workshop will therefore be English.
James Adams, Camilla Bjarnøe & Alexandra Feddersen. The importance of the public: The use of populistic communication strategies during election campaigns.
Sofie Filstrup. Intimate, personal or professional? Constructing a political persona online.
David Hopmann, Kim Andersen & Morten Skovsgaard. Intentional and unintentional news avoidance across Europe.
Johanna Jääsaari, Janne Matikainen & Minna Aslama Horowitz. Perceived Trustworthiness of Finnish News Media: Ability, Integrity and Benevolence.
Erik Knudsen. Using news recommender systems to influence selective exposure: Insights from a counterfactual scenario.
Anam Kuraishi. Insights from South Asia – A case of post-truth discourse in Pakistan.
Franziska Marquart, Jakob Ohme & Judith Möller. Cascade or salmon effects? How participation types influence each other over time and the role of (digital) media.
Jón Gunnar Ólafsson. ‘Everybody knows everybody’ (on Facebook) – Public and private interactions in a two-level online sphere.
Sina Özdemir & Pieter de Wilde. PR+: maintaining legitimacy of the EU through public communication on Twitter.
Trajche Panov. Digital Inequality among Political Representatives: The role of personal skills and constituency characteristics.
Adam Shehata, Fabian Thomas, Isabella Glogger, Kim Andersen & Per Oleskog Tryggvasson. Belief Maintenance: Conceptualizing and Operationalizing a Fundamental Media Effect
Morten Thomsen. Communicating new environmental evidence and regulations: Sender, channel, and perception.
T. Murat Yildirim & Gunnar Thesen. Revisiting Gender Differences in the Media Coverage of Legislators.
Workshop 13 – New avenues for corruption research
Gissur Ólafur Erlingsson, Associate professor in political science, Linköping University, Sweden. Email: Gissur.email@example.com
Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson, Professor in political science, University of Iceland, Iceland. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Corruption is increasingly the subject of empirical research in political science and the number of published articles in academic journal has increased exponentially in recent decades (Rothstein & Varraich 2017; Heywood 2018a). However, conceptual and methodological problems remain considerable (Heywood 2018a). Despite efforts by international organizations, we lack undisputed measures to deal with different types and syndromes of corruption (Andvig 2005; Arnd & Oman 2006; Heywood 2018b; Andersson & Heywood 2009). To date, the main research strategies have tended to be case studies (sometimes including content analysis of recorded/written material), perception-based strategies, experience-based strategies, gauging strength of anti-corruption institutions/rule of law, and studies of the structure of corruption (including e.g. experimental studies). Given the clandestine nature of corruption, triangulation of methods has also become an increasingly important approach in studies of corruption.
Although corruption is, perhaps, less of a problem in the Nordic setting than in many other parts of the world, there is reason to believe that some of its subtler forms are not easily detected in conventional bribes-based approaches, and has perhaps hence been overlooked by both academics and policy-makers. It has also become increasingly recognised that studying corruption at other levels of the political system than the state-level – e.g. transnational, regional, local, individual – has a potential to contribute to our knowledge about corruption. There is reason to believe that studying corruption in a context where it is less endemic than in highly corrupt regions is equally important for a well-rounded view.
Against this backdrop, this workshop is open to conceptual, methodological and theoretical contributions as well as papers based on empirical research. We particularly welcome a special focus is on corruption in ‘least corrupt’ settings, which may not be as easily detected by conventional methods. Hence, we particularly welcome papers based on more innovative research strategies such as experiments/field experiments; and papers with its research focus elsewhere than on the state-level (e.g. local or regional level, individual level, as well as studying transnational corruption). Papers dealing with the causes and consequences of corruption e.g. on trust and legitimacy, are most welcome too.
Jóhanna Gísladóttir. How to bridge the discourse on corruption: A system dynamics approach to the study of corruption.
Paul Heywood and Mark Hyman. Developing more effective reform strategies to tackle corruption.
Gissur Ó Erlingsson and Susanne W Lundåsen. Internal efficacy and political trust: evidence from a mature democracy.
Yusuke Ishikawa. Anti-Corruption NGOs as Think Tanks: The Effects of Transparency International on Anti-Corruption Policies in the UK.
Mónica García-Quesada, Manuel Villoria Mendieta and Fernando Jiménez Sánchez. Particularism in corruption studies: Conceptual and methodological challenges from the Spanish case.
Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson. Bureaucratic autonomy and political corruption in Iceland.
Gustavo Gouvêa Maciel. Expanding the knowledge on the effects of social norms on tolerance towards corruption.
Pedro Magalhaes and Luis de Sousa. Corruption and economic crisis, a poisonous combination: understanding process-outcome interactions in the explanation of public support for democracy.
Fredrik Malmberg and Inga Haikkonenþ. Perceived gender differences in corruptness – Do corruption perceptions matter?
Joel Martinsson. Access Granted, Access Denied – A mixed-method study about lobbying, transparency, and politics.
Pertti Ahonen. Examining less conventional corruption in a less corrupt country context: An organisational and societal dynamics approach to case studies from Finland.
Emanuel Wittberg and Mihaly Fazekas. Public procurement manipulation and firm performance: evidence from Sweden.
Workshop 15 – The Politics of Law and Courts
Gunnar Grendstad, Professor, Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen. Email: email@example.com
Anna Wallerman, Senior Lecturer, Department of Law, University of Gothenburg. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Judicialization – the process of more national and international laws and the greater prominence of judges and courts in the policy-making processes – is still outpacing Nordic political science and interdisciplinary scholarship. While judicial politics is establishing itself as a sub-discipline on the European continent, there is a dire need to connect, expand and build similar efforts in the Nordic countries. The workshop will bring together an emerging and expanding group of interdisciplinary scholars who analyze law, courts and politics within and beyond the Nordic region. The goals of the workshop are to strengthen this Nordic-based international network and to foster cutting-edge research.
Nordic research on the politics of law and courts is gaining momentum. Recent research has explored decision making on Nordic apex courts, how Nordic courts engage with the ECJ preliminary reference procedure, and how Nordic supreme courts cite international law and other sources. Other vigorous research efforts have contributed to our understanding of the working of international courts. Ongoing studies are broadening the field, looking inter alia into the political and law-making role of courts.
Seeking to consolidate and expand upon these efforts, the workshop invites theoretical, methodological, empirical as well as comparative and inter-disciplinary papers on a range of topics, including but not limited to analyses of legal actors, courts, institutional procedures, institutional change, decision making, legal mobilization, and implementation. We especially seek contributions that address the role of courts in the Nordic context, but also welcome proposals on judicial politics in in other regions and context.
As the court system of Iceland underwent major restructuring in January 2018, a visit to the Supreme Court of Iceland is planned as a part of the program of the workshop. The workshop is planned to be held in English.
Øyvind Stiansen and Tom Pavone. The Shadow Effect of Courts: Judicial Review and the Politics of Preemptive Reform
Pernille Boye Koch. Scepticism in disguise. Implementation of international human rights law in Danish state bureaucracy.
Mattias Derlén, Johan Lindholm & Daniel Naurin. The Ideal Justice: Who is Selected to Serve and What Does It Say about the Supreme Court?
Karin Leijon & Linda Moberg. Courts as guarantors for an individualized and need based eldercare?
Jon Kåre Skiple, Henrik Litleré Bentsen and Sveinung Arnesen. Majority size, issue salience and public support for court decisions: Evidence from a survey-embedded vignette experiment.
Haukur Logi Karlsson. Politics and the rule of law ideal in the appointment of European judges.
Marlene Löding. The role of judges in the lower courts in Sweden – a study of expectations and ideals.
Liv Navntoft Henningsen. Judicialisation and transformative equality in law. The emerging anti-stereotyping principle in European human rights law.
Anna Wallerman, Gunnar Grendstad and Johan Karlsson Schaffer. Institutional frameworks for Scandinavian supreme court decision-making.
Henrik L. Bentsen. Judicial leadership on Scandinavian high courts
Mintao Nie, Gunnar Grendstad, William R. Shaffer and Eric N. Waltenburg. The impact of female leadership in collegial courts on time to render merits decisions.
Workshop 18 – The Agents of Public Sector Innovation
Dalia Mukhtar-Landgren, Lund University, Department. of Political Science, Sweden. Email: email@example.com
Beata Segercrantz, Helsinki University, Swedish School of Social Science, Finland. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Mats Fred, Global political studies, Malmö University, Sweden. Email: email@example.com
We are currently witnessing an increasing interest in and application of different kinds of change initiatives in the public sector. Some of these initiatives can be related to overarching reform packages such as New Public Management, New Public Governance or the Danish and Swedish trust reforms. Others are related to processes of (social) innovations ranging from policy labs, urban testbeds and different forms of experimental governance, often manifested in projects or pilots. These processes are often related to trends aiming to maximize public sector performance, including the search for evidence-based solutions, best practices or the mediation of knowledge between sectors. Taken together, they exemplify a paradigm in which ‘innovation’ is not only seen as the key driver of organizational success but is also considered vital for organizational survival.
This session draws attention to the agents facilitating and promoting this development. In the context of public sector organizations we find a myriad of examples of these agents, including consultants, project managers and “strategists”, policy entrepreneurs or insider activists. Some embrace this role, while others may experience tensions. These agents come from the public as well as the private sector and/or the civil society. What they have in common is their promotion of ideas, change, solutions and innovations in public sector organizing.
We welcome empirical papers focusing on the (individual as well as organizational) agents active in the broadly defined field of public sector innovation, as well as theoretical discussions of changing roles, mandates and processes of change, continuity and resistance within the field. We also welcome contributions that takes a broader or structural perspective on the organizational, institutional, discursive and/or social context in which these actors operate.
Language: English. If all papers are written and presented by Scandinavian speaking scholars, we will use the Scandinavian languages.
Marian Gustafsson and Elin Wihlborg. Service Automation in the Public Sector: Concepts, Empirical Examples and Challenges.
Karin Berglund, Beata Segercrantz and Karl-Erik Sveiby. Secret agent of public sector innovation: Innovating procured drug distribution services through back sourcing.
Patrick Hall and Karl Löfgren. The rise of the innovation manager in the public sector.
Linus Johansson Krafve and Nurgül Özbek. Organizational Innovations for Prioritizing Welfare: A Pragmatist Analysis of The NT Council.
Jannik Egelund. FN’s verdensmål tvinger kommunerne til at styrke tværfagligt samarbejde om innovative løsninger.
Maria Blomgren, Tina Hedmo and Caroline Waks. Hybrid professionals and their work – managing institutional complexity in public organizations.
Sebastian Godenhjlem and Christian Jensen. Multiple actors, multiple challenges: Implications for experimental governance and learning in the Nordic countries.
Harald Gegner. Krav på innovationer skapar nya yrkesgrupper. Hybridprofessionella, som innovationsaktörer i offentlig sektor.
Hans Erik Haugvaldstad and Annkarin Tennås Holmen. One for all and all for one … to a certain point: Internal legitimacy in municipal governance networks.
Mats Fred and Dalia Mukhtar-Landgren. Narrating public sector innovation: actors, stories and coalitions.
Workshop 20 – Party system change – are political parties still carriers of ideological alternatives?
Jonas Hinnfors, PhD, Professor of Political Science, University of Gothenburg. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Jonathan Polk, PhD, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. Email: email@example.com
According to research in comparative politics, party systems in Western Europe have been changing during the last 40 years. A common claim is that the ideologies of parties have become increasingly similar, while at the same time party systems have become more fragmented. This is one of the crucial paradoxes, which party system research has not yet resolved.
We welcome both theoretical and empirical accounts with either single party system cases or comparative approaches. In this group, we are interested in several research perspectives, e.g. whether party system change can be explained by the decoupling of party rhetoric and enacted policies, strategic choices of party leaders, vote maximization, parliamentary conflict/cooperation or internal party tensions? Further, approaches looking at various party system actors, such as dominant parties, old parties, new parties and other types of parties are welcome.
Target groups: We invite scholars working on party system change, political parties and parliamentary party groups. Scholars with a more general comparative politics approach on political parties are also welcome. Primarily, we expect the empirical focus to be on European cases.
Ann-Kristin Kölln & Jonathan Polk. Partisan Preferences on Candidates for Political Office: Experimental Evidence from Sweden.
Christoffer Green-Pedersen. A party system without party competition? Issue competition in Ireland.
Henrik Bech Seeberg. To which societal problems do political parties pay attention?
Ida Hjermitslev. Between coalition participation and opposition: Public perceptions of parties supporting minority governments.
Raimondas Ibenskas. Fuzzy or Programmatic, but not Novel? Performance Failures, Ideological Constraint and the Emergence and Appeals of New Political Parties.
Magnus Hagevi, Jonas Hinnfors, Sofie Blombäck, Marie Demker and Karl Loxbo. Sources of party voter-representation in Western Europe.
Jonas Hinnfors, Sofie Blombäck, Marie Demker, Magnus Hagevi & Karl Loxbo. Ideological depolarisation or not? What happens when we actually measure party ideology in West-European party systems since the 1970s?
Cassandra Engeman. When Do Countries Support Fathers’ Care Work? Comparative politics of parental leave provisions.
Jakob Ahlbom. The Cohesive Left and the Divided Right: Mapping the cultural issue dimension’s asymmetrical influence on the structure of political attitudes.
Johan Anderse. From Exclusion to Establishment: Researching Party Organisation in Scandinavian Populist Parties.
Jakob Schwörer. Don’t call me a populist! The meaning of populism for Western European Parties.
Workshop 22 – Managing the health sector: recent trends in policy-making and governance
Frode Veggeland, PhD in Political Science, Professor, Department of health management and health economics, University of Oslo. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Mio Fredriksson, Associate professor (PhD, Master of Social Sciences), Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Sweden. Email: email@example.com
This workshop aims at shedding light on recent developments in the health sector with a particular focus on the Nordic countries. The scope of the workshop is divided into five categories:
- Emerging technologies (such as electronic patient records and e-health);
- Implementing new organizational models (such as public-private partnerships and care pathways);
- Alternative governance modes (such as “One Health”, cross-border care and user influence/patients’ rights);
- Emerging health policy styles (such as market orientation and alternative public health interventions);
- Systemic health threats (such as aging population, pandemics, climate change and other emerging crisis).
The working group welcomes papers addressing one or more of the topics mentioned above – preferably with a focus on Nordic countries (cross-country studies are warmly welcomed), but papers focusing on other geographical areas may also be accepted.
Target groups: Researchers (including PhD students) from political science, the social sciences and other relevant fields who are studying health policy and health management with a particular focus on recent developments in Europe and the Nordics.
The workshop is a follow-up of two previous workshops: “Nordisk helsepolitikk” (Nordic health policy), held in August 2014 at the XVII Nordic Political Science Congress, University of Gothenburg, and “Current challenges in health sector governance in Europe”, held in August 2017 at the XVIII Nordic Political Science Congress, University of Southern Denmark, Odense. One important rationale behind this workshop is the adding of continuity and strengthening of the Nordic health policy network within social science in general and political science in particular.
Karsten Vrangbæk. Disease Management Programs in Denmark – Implementation dynamics and outcomes.
Lars Erik Kjekshus and Lars Klemsdal. How can public governance reforms maintain and enhance trust?
Charlotte Kiland, Gro Kvåle, Dag Olaf Torjesen and Tor-Ivar Karlsen. “Health in all policies” and the urge for coordination: the use of public health coordinators and their impact and influence in local public health work.
Kari Tove Elvbakken. The political history of abortion legislation in the Scandinavian countries – controversies, actors and international inspiration.
Guro Øydgard. Managing the health sector: recent trends in policy-making and governance.
Margrete Gaski. Norway: Authority, Composition of Work Force and Roles.
Geir Haakon I. Hilland, Terje P. Hagen and Pål E. Martinussen. Did the introduction of supplemented primary care units affect the quality of the municipal health services? A panel data analysis of Norwegian data.
Hilmar Rommetvedt, Inger Marie Stigen and Karsten Vrangbæk. Strategic games or deliberative bliss? – Coordination in regional/local health committees in Norway and Denmark.
Ingrid Marie Taxt Horne, Frode Veggeland, Fredrik Bååthe and Karin Isakson Rø. Do peer support services meet the needs of doctors seeking help? A qualitative interview study.
Oda Nordheim. Social policy and its impact on self-rated health: How types of social spending affect health and health inequality.
Pål. E. Martinussen and Frode Veggeland. Quality of Government, Trust and Subjective Health: A Multi-level Analysis of European Countries.
Rolf Hugoson. Smart city negotiations and regional health policies in Northern Scandinavia.
Caroline Hoffstedt and Ulrika Winblad. Patients’ justification of a non-engaged choice of provider: Evidence from Swedish primary care.
Ulrika Winblad and Paula Blomqvist. The Swedish Coordination Act – what was the rationale of the chosen policy instruments?
Terje P Hagen. Effects of municipal acute units on hospital admissions: Evaluation of a natural experiment using register data.
Workshop 23 – The West Nordic – International, Arctic and National Contexts.
Gestur Hovgaard, Head of institute, associate professor, Institute of Social Science, Economics & Journalism, University of Greenland, Nuuk. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Jens Christian S Justinussen, Head of Program, Associate Professor, Faculty of History and Social Sciences. University of the Faroe Islands. Email: email@example.com
The idea behind this workshop is to make a forum for scholars doing research on the West Nordic countries, Faroe Islands, Greenland and Iceland. We welcome research within a national and an international perspective, which may be comparative in scope as well. For the international context we welcome contributions on government, governance or political issues or societal developments. We would like to see focus on The West Nordic in the Arctic context, both in relation to the socio-economic developments in the Arctic, a juridical context as well as in relation to the West Nordic region’s status and position in the Arctic Council. We also welcome contributions who focus more on these three countries in a Nordic or small state context. In the national context we would like to see contributions who focus on themes such as the local level and its challenges for service provision and democracy. Coping with long distances and peripheral locations in that context is for many localities or municipalities a great challenge. We also like to see contributions on higher education policies and implementations, both nationally and in the West Nordic context.
Gestur Hovgaard & Grétar Thór Eythórsson. The West Nordic Region and its future prospects and challenges in the Arctic context.
Lukas Danner. The West Nordic in the International Spotlight: An Analysis of Outside Power Intrusion and Comparative Patterns in Strategies of Greenland, Faroe Islands, and Iceland.
Maria Ackrén. Quality of Government: The Case of Greenland.
Guðbjörg R. Th. Hauksdóttir. Changing Political Landscape in the Arctic: China’s political impact on the West Nordic region.
Jens Christian Svabo Justinussen, Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen & Mariia Kobzeva. Human Capital, Institutions and Natural Resource abundance in the West Nordic area – lessons on how to avoid the Resource Curse.
Michael H. Feldballe Hansen. A West Nordic way of social investments? – A comparative analysis of social- and labour market policies, focusing on the Faroe Island as a Sub-National Island Jurisdiction.
Mariia Kobzeva & Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen. Chinese and Russian involvement in the West Nordic region: from the Cold War legacy to future trends.
Hallbera West & Mette Marie Stæhr Harder. Constituency focus or parliamentary scrutiny: Faroese and Greenlandic MPs´ attitudes towards parliamentary committees.
Uffe Jakobsen. Relations with “our kinsmen in the west”: Developments in Inuit governance processes and government systems in Greenland compared to Arctic and West Nordic societies.
Workshop 26 – Local Politics and Government
Grétar Thór Eythórsson, Professor in Government and Methodology, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Akureyri, Iceland. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Jan Erling Klausen, Associate professor, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway. Email: email@example.com
Jo Saglie, Forsker I, Institutt for Samfunnsforskning, Norway. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ulrik Kjær, Professor, Syddansk Universitet, Denmark. Email: email@example.com
One of the proposed merits of local governments has traditionally been its closeness to citizens. In theory, this should facilitate the participation of the citizens in political processes as well as the local political/administrative system’s responsiveness to the local inhabitants. Although the Nordic countries are unitary states, they are very decentralized. However, most of them have experienced local government reforms – especially municipal amalgamations – recently. How is local democracy presently doing in the Nordic countries? And what is the impact of recent reforms on local democracy?
Amalgamation reforms have been implemented in various European countries since World War II and are still or again on the agenda of national and subnational governments. Politicians consider them as a solution to improve public service delivery as well as the financial situation of local and superordinate tiers of government. Some of the Nordic countries have implemented comprehensive amalgamation reforms, others not as comprehensive and in some cases even less has happened. One could ask why. Other measures such as inter-municipal cooperation, have been used to improve services and increase capacity to deliver them.
This workshop invites scholars doing empirical work on Nordic local governments to discuss the well-functioning of local democracy, including both the municipal and regional level and papers paper that focus on municipal amalgamations, amalgamation reforms as well as other measures to reach the goals intended by merging units on the local level. Contributions focusing on the drivers or objectives behind amalgamations or amalgamation reforms, strategies used in the context and even conflicts that come up in such re-shuffling. Studies of electoral and non-electoral democracy are equally welcomed. Studies of state-local relations, as well as studies of relations between local governments and citizens and community organizations, will fit into the workshop. Other topics of interest are local electoral systems and local party branches. The papers can be single-country studies where local governments within the same national setting are compared or studies where the Nordic countries are included in comparative analyses with other (Nordic or non-Nordic) countries. The workshop is open for studies applying qualitative as well as quantitative research methods.
We would even like to see contributions focusing on the impact of municipal amalgamations. Here we like to see presentations on the impact on municipal services, especially looking at service quality, service capacity, service efficiency and equality in services between the centre and the periphery in the municipality. Further, impact on democracy is relevant in the context.
We welcome country comparative contributions, country specific contributions both in a Nordic context as well as a European.
Language: Nordic but English is allowed
Kurt Klaudi Klausen. Strategic maneuvering in the design of municipal mergers.
Grétar Þór Eyþórsson. Municipal amalgamantions and voter turnout.
Vífill Karlsson. Local housing prices and municipal amalgamations.
Siv Sandberg. Samma kommunstruktur sedan 1865. Varför år så svårt att reformera kommunidelnining på Åland?
Jan Erling Klausn. Institutional rulse for territorial change.
Ulrik Kjær, Jo Saglie & Signe Bock Segaard. Why Are there More Female Local Councillors in Norway than in Denmark?
Hilmar Rommetvedt. Verdivurderinger ved kommunale beslutninger – et tema med variasjoner.
Marte Winsvold. The relationship between group representation and perceived political leadership among Norwegian and Danish local councillors.
Workshop 27 – Leadership in local government administration
Eva Marín Hlynsdóttir, University of Iceland, Iceland. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dag Olaf Torjesen, University in Agder, Norway. Email: email@example.com
The focus of this panel is on the top civil servants in local government and their interactions with the local politicians. We invite many types of paper submissions that include such a focus, be they single country descriptive papers or multiple country large N comparative papers intending to explain variations. Papers may for instance focus on the institutional antecedents for interactions between politics and administration in local government, on explaining variations in administrative leadership styles, or on the top civil servant’s role in the creation of novel ways of organizing. Papers may present empirical findings from small N qualitative case-studies or large N research from surveys and register data and/or they may present theoretical frameworks designed to understand, explain or normatively evaluate issues related to local government top civil servants. We recommend that papers clarify the institutional context of the local government system(s) in focus. The institutional context may refer to formal rules as well as informal culture and we encourage papers examining variations in civil service systems and their associated public service ethos. We encourage that papers include notions of history, path dependence and emerging patterns of change – be they deliberate top down reforms or bottom up processes of slow incremental evolution. We are expecially interested in papers that explore gender issues in relation to top civil service.
Target group: Researchers interested in local government top civil servants, gender in local government leadership, political leaders and local government administration
Language: Nordic but English is allowed
Hilde Bjørnå & Harald Torsteinsen. Performance management, citizen satisfaction and trust in local government – a Norwegian case.
Dag Olaf Torjesen, Rolf Solli, Harald Torsteinsen, Tor-Ivar Karlsen. The Nordic municipality organization interpreted through Leavitt’s diamond lens.
Charlotte Kiland, Dag Olaf Torjesen & Tor-Ivar Karlsen. The interplay between top civil servants and civil society in local government in the age of New Public Governance.
Morten Balle Hansen & Harald Torsteinsen. The Diffusion of Organizational Innovations. Antecedents of New Public Management in Danish and Norwegian Local Government.
Eva Marín Hlynsdóttir. The task prioritization of the local government CEO and the effect of gender and political affiliation.
Morten Balle Hansen, Anna Cregaard, Eva Marín Hlynsdóttir, Siv Sandberg & Dag Olaf Torjesen. Nordic Local Government in a Comparative and historical Perspective.
Robert Blair, Christian L. Janousek and Dag Olaf Torjesen. A Comparative Study of Interlocal Collaborative Mechanisms: Perspectives of Cooperative Service Delivery Structures in Nebraska and Norway
Morten Balle Hansen and Rolf Solli. Theorizing Municipal CEOs and their Political and Organizational Context.
Workshop 28 – Current hegemonic struggles, transformed structures, and vocabularies
Allan Dreyer Hansen, Roskilde University. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Charlotte Fridolfsson, Linköpings universitet. Email: email@example.com
Emilia Palonen, University of Helsinki. Email: Emilia.Palonen@helsinki.fi
Thirty five years after the publication of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democracy by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe in 1985, this workshops invites analyses of contemporary challenges, struggles in politics and societies related to the theory of hegemony. We are witnessing profound changes in the political landscapes since the mid-eighties. At that time the pressing question regarded the new social movements and their unification in order to challenge oppressive regimes or contest individual-centred neoliberalism, with its consensus on a particular economic model. After 1989 this consensus only deepened in what has been called a global neo-liberal hegemony. However the situation has changed.
While Laclau and Mouffe addressed the proliferation of subject positions, now we witness several forms of challenges to the status quo, including neo-liberalism. The ‘explosion’ of populism, mostly right-wing but also left-oriented, but also by new forms of democracy, including an increased attention to participation. With these changes in mind we want to raise the question: which hegemonies for the 2020ies? Our aim is to unveil new hegemonic frameworks and formations, contemporary moments of dislocation, and not least, explore populist meaning making. What is the transformed Zeitgeist? How more precisely, have the structures of meaning making transformed? In this workshop we seek to generate new vocabularies for the current era of hybrid media and participative turn. We particularly focus on the perspective of poststructuralist, postfoundational and rhetoric performative analysis. We invite analyses from all branches of the poststructuralist landscape but we place the theoretical perspective of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy as a ‘nodal point’, inviting alternative approaches to relate to this seminal work.
Cases from the Nordic countries are of course especially welcome, but we encourage papers from international scholars as well as on cases from around the globe. The language of the workshop is English, but we also welcome papers discussing hegemony and discourse theory in the 2020s in the Nordic countries. Scandinavian and Finnish language terminology related to hegemony and discourse theory are also welcome – e.g. the notion of ‘folkelighed’ or new vocabularies that emerge in the contemporary era. Global semi-peripheries such as the Nordic countries can help us capture essential dimensions of contemporary theorising and praxis. Interaction between different vernacular conceptualisations will help us to develop new theoretical vocabularies, and address political meaning making, beyond the geographical points of departure.
The workshop is a continuation of 3 former NOPSA-workshops, but is of course open to anyone interested in its topics.
Emilia Palonen. Theorizing Hegemony, Populism and Polarisation for the Era of Hybrid Media Systems.
Charlotte Fridolfsson. Failing failures – grading system hegemony and neoliberal subjects/objects.
Allan Dreyer Hansen. Populism and the underdog – the political identities of populism.
Anders Hovmøller. The Construction of the People in the Danish People’s Party.
Ulrika Waaranperä. Hegemony and property rights in the Swedish Mineral Strategy and the National Forest Inquiry.
Thomas Jacobs. The post-Marxist political economy of EU trade. A discourse-theoretical analysis of the construction of political agency in the European Parliament.
Liv Sunnercrantz. The problem with ‘populism’ – or, Post-foundationalism co-opted.
Maria Carbin, Eric Carlsson & Bo Nilsson. A new climate of knowledge? Academics responding to problems of post-truth.
Mark Devenney. Political hegemony today – conceptualisations.
Craig Love. Intellectual Logic and the case of the Scottish Independence Referendum.
Torben Bech Dyrberg. Islamophobia and leftist identity politics.
Mette Marie Roslyng. Milk, facts and myths: Environmental protest as citizenship.
Peter Triantafillou. Sovereignty in a neoliberal era under change: How to think about it?
Oliver Marchart. Liberal Anti-Populism and Radical Democracy.
Caroline Maria Kalkreuth. Is global populism possible? Applying Ernesto Laclau’s concept of populism to the ‘Fridays for Future’ movement.
Taavi Sundell. Back to Square One: Critique of Political Economy from a Post-Foundational Perspective.
Mikkel Flohr. The conceptual historical roots of the people, the popular and populism.
Michaela Padden. Data Protection Discourse: A Genealogy.
Workshop 31 – Contentious Politics in an Age of Austerity: Anti-EU Mobilization in Europe after the Financial Crisis
Helga K. Hallgrímsdóttir, University of Victoria. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Maximilian Conrad, University of Iceland. Email: email@example.com
Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly, University of Victoria. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
The European Union has been in more or less constant crisis mode since the beginning of the 2008 global financial crisis, as highlighted by the Eurozone debt crisis, the 2015-2016 refugee crisis, the resurgence of right-wing populism and nationalism in many member states and, most dramatically, the 2016 decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU. Considerable scholarship already exists about the economic causes and impact of the financial crisis, but the political and social ramifications, especially for the EU, are still considerably less clear. Not only do the EU‘s recent crises appear to have a detrimental effect on the very notion of solidarity as a guiding principle underlying the European project. In addition, public opposition to free-trade projects such as TTIP and CETA underlines the increasing contentiousness of European integration more broadly, although there are also indications that the Brexit referendum has served as a wake-up call that has resulted in various forms of pro-European backlash across the EU. Taking these observations as a point of departure, the proposed workshop addresses the question of the effect of the EU‘s recent crises on (a) political discourse, in particular in terms of populist and normative framings of citizenship, national belonging, pan-Europeanism and Euro-skepticism; (b) the ways in which this discourse been taken up by political actors in anti-European claims-making at various levels; and (c) under what specific governance conditions such framings have led to politically important outcomes for Euroskeptic actors.
The workshop invites papers that address these questions from a theoretical and/or empirical angle. Empirical papers may be single-case or comparative case studies, and we explicitly welcome insights from a broad variety of EU member states.
Maria Helena Guimarães & Michelle Egan. Subnational mobilization as political counter-movement to EU trade policy.
Benjamin Perrier. The Yellow Vests in France, a chance for the democratic overhaul of the EU.
Robert Sata. Nemesis of the EU and Saviour of Europe – The Hungarian Populist Discourse of Crisis.
Maciej Sychowiec. Do anti-globalist governments receive lower credit ratings? The study of the relationship between the socio-cultural dimension of political ideology and creditworthiness in Europe.
Vittorio Orlando. Agency and Structure in the Age of European Disintegration.
Helga Hallgrimsdottir, Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly & Maximilian Conrad. Contentious Politics in an Age of Austerity: Preliminary findings from a comparative study of France, Spain, Germany and Iceland.
Michael J. Carpenter. New Approaches to Civil Disobedience in European Context: The Rise of Popular Protest and Transgressive Migration.
Matthew Downey. The Sub-National Assertion of Sovereignty Portrayals of the EU in the Rhetoric of Pro-Independence Nationalist Movements in the UK following the 2016 Brexit Referendum: Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
Heather MacRae, Roberta Guerrina and Annick Masselot. A Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste: Feminist Perspectives on the Crises in the EU.
Keiran Ellis. Political Dissidence or Threat of Disintegration The Impacts of the Migrant Crisis on Potential European Disintegration.
Johannes Lehtinen. Party communication on the EU during national and European parliamentary elections.
Workshop 34 – Political identity and political efficacy
Johannes Bergh, Leader of the Norwegian National Election Studies Institute for Social Research, Oslo, Norway. Email: email@example.com
Aino Tiihonen, Researcher, Tampere University. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Niels Nørgaard Kristensen, Aalborg University. Email: email@example.com
Previous studies have perceived a growing inequality gap between social groups and political participation in the Nordic countries as well as elsewhere in Europe. Political efficacy refers to an individual’s belief that a government acts in a responsive manner, taking into account citizens’ preferences and needs (external efficacy), and that an individual considers herself capable of influencing politics and controlling political decision-making (internal efficacy). Strong political efficacy, both external and internal, should lead to political engagement, which is based on critical evaluation of the political system (i.e. informed citizenship), correct and sufficient information on politics, and, consequently, to active participation in the society. Education, and particularly civic education, is considered to be one of the main explanations creating gaps in citizens’ efficacy-levels. Moreover, there exists several other potential factors (such as gender and migration background) affecting political efficacy depending on whether the interest is on internal or external political efficacy.
The panel welcomes both theoretical studies and empirical papers that take on different methodological techniques and analytical tools. Topics of interest include (but are not limited to): differences in the levels of political efficacy across social groups, potential factors explaining efficacy gaps, and education’s role in shaping citizens’ political efficacy. We especially welcome papers that investigate the link between political efficacy and political participation.
Language: The language of the working group will be English. We recommend that the papers should be written in English as well.
Svein Tuastad. The attentive publics – revisited.
Sune Welling Hansen, Robert Klemmensen, David Dreyer Lassen & Søren Serritzlew. Internal political efficacy, over-confidence and political behavior.
Titiana Ertiö & Mikko Rask. Experiences of efficacy from the participatory budgeting pilot in Helsinki.
Thomas Karv, Marina Lindell & Lauri Rapeli. Political efficacy and political engagement within a minority group – the role of language and individual determinants.
Elina Kestilä-Kekkonen, Josefina Sipinen, Lauri Rapeli & Salla Vadén. The Role of Parental Encouragement in Reducing the Gender Gap in Political Efficacy.
Heini í Skorini. Science as a Political Battlefield: How Cultural Values Shape People’s Attitudes to Scientific Political Issues.
Olga Brusylovska. Mass Media Role in “Hybrid” Wars: Case of Russian-Ukrainian Conflict.
Anton Brännlund & Rafael Ahlskog. Get rich Or Develop an Egalitarian Identity Trying.
Niels Nørgaard Kristensen. Political Identity: Concepts and developments.
Martin Vinæs Larsen, Andreas Nordang Uhre and Ole Martin Lægreid. Electoral ramification of wind power development in Denmark 1979-2019.
Workshop 35 – Gender & politics research in times of backlash
Drude Dahlerup, professor, Roskilde University, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Lenita Freidenvall, associate professor, Stockholm University, e-mail Lenita.email@example.com
Silja Bára Ómarsdóttir, PhD, Faculty of Political Science, University of Iceland. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Élise Féron, PhD, Tampere Peace Research Institute, Tampere University, Finland. Email: email@example.com
This workshop will discuss the future of Gender & Politics research in the Nordic countries, in Europe and globally in a period of double-edged tendencies – continued worldwide progress of this relative new research discipline, and at the same time an almost inconceivable new resistance to gender studies (e.g. the ban on gender studies centers in Hungary by law). No doubt, the intersectional perspective and the theoretical questioning of the dichotomy of ‘women’ and ‘men’ seems to have contributed to stirring this resistance. To what extent have we been blind to the alienation that these new perspectives have encouraged, not only among some political elites, but, more importantly, also among non-feminists women and women’s organizations.
Backlash is more than just the idea of a simple reaction to changes. It is central to conservative politics and acts as a driving force in the campaign against extended rights. The return to “traditional values” and an aggressive backlash against the fight for equality by women, ethnic, racial and sexual orientation and gender identity minorities is a prominent feature of the international political landscape at the moment. This manifests in the development of “anti-gender” or masculinist movements, or in a backlash against what are seen as “western values”, for example through a resistance against gender mainstreaming and gender equality programming in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
This workshop explores the radical methods and measures employed by those fighting against the ideas that extend rights and liberties to other groups and thus threaten their preferred way of life. The papers in this workshop will explore political backlash in modern politics, in particular how this backlash is directed against gender equality and intersectional factors such as race, sexual orientation etc. Examples explored could include masculinist movements, the increase in interpersonal violence directed against women, governmental actions such as the banning of gender studies and critical social sciences and more. Perspectives linking decolonial/postcolonial debates to gender equality are particularly welcome, as are those placing these debates in the framework of international peace and security.
Target Groups: Junior and senior scholars, e.g. feminist scholars and peace and security researchers, exploring the manifestations of political backlash in diverse domestic and international frameworks. The workshop invites papers from a broad range of sub disciplines within political science. Especially welcome are papers, which in their presentation of their present research projects will incorporate reflections on the position and impact of their work in a troubled time in history. We invite single studies as well comparative studies. We invite experienced as well as younger scholars in order to encourage a cross-generational discussion about approaches and methodologies.
Joakim Johansson & Jamshid Dashti. Educating Male Immigrants in Gender Equality.
Gefjon Off. Explaining the gender gap radical right-wing voting by gender attitudes, Sweden, 1988-2018.
Rasmus Andrén. Memory and Anxiety in times of Calamity.
Zahra Edalati. The Experience of Lasting Backlash: “Am I a ‘good’ woman? Am I endorsed by ‘Western’ standards or not?”
Henri Myrttinen. SGBV, Homophobia and Violent Policing of Gender Norms to Gain Popular Support.
Emil Edenborg & Gunilla Reischl. Anti-progressive mobilization and knowledge practices: Contrasting transnational anti-gender activism and climate denialism.
Gunnar Sigvaldason & Silja Bára Ómarsdóttir. Conservatives and Successful Liberalization of Reproductive Rights: The Case of Iceland.
Telma Velez, Brynja E. Halldórsdóttir & Silja Bára Ómarsdóttir. The implementation of Article 20 of Istanbul Convention in the #metoo era: The services available to immigrant women in Iceland.
Þorgerður Einarsdóttir, Jyl J. Josephson, & Laufey Axelsdóttir. Gender, Sexual Fluidity and Non-Confirmative Sexual Attraction.
Élise Féron. Nationalism, extremism and the gender order: The case of the Nordic Resistance Movement.
Sigrún Ólafsdóttir. When is abortion acceptable? Public Attitudes toward abortion in Europe in an era of political backlash against women’s rights.