Search

This paper discusses the lasting impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on research ethics in social sciences by focusing on the concept of vulnerability. We unpack the current conceptualisations of vulnerability and their limitations and argue for the need to reconceptualise vulnerability as multidimensional, consisting of both universal and contextual dimensions, as well as their dynamic interplay. Multidimensional vulnerability is inspired by and relevant to social science research during the pandemic but can also be useful in other contexts such as climate change or conflict. The paper puts forwards several considerations about how this revised concept of vulnerability may be useful when evaluating ethical dimensions of social science research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade we have witnessed the rise of radical left parties (RLPs) in several European countries. According to the prevalent definition in the literature, the key feature of this party family is the goal to overcome capitalism. However, based on content analysis of party and governmental documents, this paper argues that the two most prominent RLPs today, SYRIZA (Greece) and Podemos (Spain), fall short in their socio-economic policies of that definition. Why are they still classified as radical left then? In addressing this puzzle, the paper critically revisits the established notion of the "party family" coined by Mair and Mudde, arguing instead that parties are what they choose to do and should therefore be classified according to their policy. Based on this, it is argued that parties such as SYRIZA and Podemos would be more accurately described as "neo-reformist left," as a sub-type of the social democratic party family. Clarifying the character of these parties is not only important for conceptual consistency. By labelling "radical" parties that are not so, political scientists risk reinforcing the legitimacy of the neoliberal status quo, not the least by excluding from the conversation the actual radical alternatives. This is particularly relevant today, with the resurgence of anti-capitalist ideas among younger generations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Eurozone crisis and its austerity-centred management opened up a fertile ground for the so-called 'radical left parties' (RLPs) and their anti-austerity agenda. Moreover, it provided a unique opportunity for this party family to enhance its rather underdeveloped transnational cooperation. Sharing several objective and subjective features, SYRIZA (Greece) and Podemos (Spain) – arguably the two most prominent European RLPs today – seemed particularly well-placed to develop a strong transnational cooperation. However, the current literature has hardly addressed whether such expectations have been borne out. Indeed, despite a recently increased interest in the radical left, there are still very few studies focusing on the transnational cooperation among RLPs. Building on documentary research and qualitative elite interviews covering the 2014–2017 period, the article has two main objectives: first, to map the cooperation between SYRIZA and Podemos by identifying the key channels and actors of this process; second, to assess their cooperation over said period, with a focus on the factors fuelling and obstructing it. The article argues that the relationship between the two parties reached its peak around SYRIZA's electoral victory in January 2015 but declined following its deal with the 'Troika' 6 months later, which blatantly contradicted SYRIZA's anti-austerity programme. It is shown that while the main incentives behind their cooperation have been their shared opposition to neoliberalism, the European Union's (EU) reaction to the crisis, and the similarities in their countries' economic situations, the main obstacles hindering that cooperation have been the primacy of national politics and the diverging views on the EU. The findings arguably provide useful insights for the wider left transnational cooperation today, in a time of renewed global capitalist crisis, when such cooperation is perhaps more relevant than ever. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most work in political science on class and political ideology is focussed on politicians’ class destination rather than class origins. Yet that is inconsistent with evidence in the case of the United Kingdom that the conditions of someone’s family upbringing do influence their politics. This article revisits the conceptualisation of class background in the current literature by redirecting attention to the sociological concept of class origin. We draw on in-depth interviews with 24 British Members of the Parliament to unpack how these political elites perceive their class background to have affected their political outlook and behaviour. Our results indicate that ‘class origin’ is more salient in the formation of Members of the Parliament’ political outlook than educational or occupational background. The manifestation of this political outlook is constrained, however, by party discipline. This tension in how British Members of the Parliament relate to their class origins has implications for how we think about the power of descriptive representation in politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]