Search

Over the last 20 years, the notion of relevance vis-à-vis political science became not only a subject of academic debates but also a domain of practice, largely due to the developments in the research funding, increasingly referred to as the 'impact agenda'. In this article, we explore how the growing focus on socio-economic impact as the assessment criterion of research funding shapes the discipline of political science itself—its knowledge production, dissemination and the emergent forms of accountability of political scientists. The article presents the results of a major international study that has examined the emergence of 'impact agendas' across 33 countries. We report on the changing idea of relevance of political science through the lens of its strategic ambiguity and historical evolution. We then explore these broader trends through an in-depth analysis of the UK as an 'extreme case' and a blueprint for funding system reforms. These developments, we argue, are not a mere funding policy innovation but rather a paradigm-level change, reshaping the position of political science in society as well as the types of scholarship that are possible and incentivised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the discipline of political science has been the focus of extensive criticism from observers based both within and beyond the academy. This is reflected in a sizable number of scholars who have called for the discipline to recognize its obligations to the public, and especially to supporting active citizenship, promoting democratic participation and addressing major social challenges. This emphasis on 'making political science matter' has also been stressed beyond the academy as funders, politicians and potential research-users place ever-greater emphasis on incentivizing and rewarding 'impact', 'relevance' and demonstrable 'public value'. The central argument of this article is that what has been missing from this debate is any sense of clarity around whether what is being demanded is greater engagement by political science as a discipline or greater engagement by political scientists as individuals. This raises distinctive questions about the moral foundations and professional ethics of political science which we explore not through a traditional focus on defending or sustaining liberal democracy but through a deeper and more subtle emphasis on the praxis of 'doing' political science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers a systematic analysis of the comparative trajectory of international democratic change. In particular, it focuses on the resulting convergence or divergence of political systems, borrowing from the literatures on institutional change and policy convergence. To this end, political-institutional data in line with Arend Lijphart’s (1999, 2012) empirical theory of democracy for 24 developed democracies between 1945 and 2010 are analyzed. Heteroscedastic multilevel models allow for directly modeling the development of the variance of types of democracy over time, revealing information about convergence, and adding substantial explanations. The findings indicate that there has been a trend away from extreme types of democracy in single cases, but no unconditional trend of convergence can be observed. However, there are conditional processes of convergence. In particular, economic globalization and the domestic veto structure interactively influence democratic convergence. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The author offers opinions on politics and government and political science. Dissatisfaction among citizens of democracies is attributed to a disparity between increased and often unrealistic expectations for governments created by overall improvements in economic and social conditions and the actual abilities of democracies to meet those expectations, abilities which have been hampered by socioeconomic changes. Political scientists and political science as a discipline are criticized for failing to conduct research on this disparity and for failing to better explain democratic processes to the public.

An introduction is presented in which the editors discuss various reports within the issue on topics including suffering of contemporary political science by Ronald Rogowski, tension between politics and expertise by Rosie Campbell and Sarah Childs, and political theory by Thom Brooks.

The 'tyranny of relevance' captures a widespread sense of concern among social and political scientists that their academic freedom and professional autonomy is under threat from a changing social context in which scholars are increasingly expected to demonstrate some form of social 'relevance', 'impact' or 'engagement' beyond academe. This article attempts to reframe the current debate by reflecting upon the history of the discipline and different forms of scholarship in order to craft an argument concerning the need for political scientists to rediscover 'the art of translation'. This, in turn, facilitates a more sophisticated grasp of key concepts, emphasises the need for the discipline to engage with multiple publics in multiple ways, and suggests that engaging with non-academic audiences is likely to improve not simply the discipline's leverage in terms of funding, or scholarship in terms of quality, but also teaching in terms of energy and relevance. The simple argument of this article is not therefore that political science has become irrelevant, but that it has generally failed to promote and communicate the social value and benefit of the discipline in an accessible manner. Resolving this situation is likely to demand a little political imagination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this essay, the author advocates for the modern-day relevance of the 1962 book "In Defence of Politics," by political scientist Bernard Crick. The author argues that Crick's work identified a sort of disjunction between governments and their subjects that has only increased as of 2012. He notes changes to political rule that have developed since the book's publication, such as information technology use, and defends politics against journalism and mass media.

In a previous edition of this journal, an argument concerning the demonization of politicians and the changing nature of democracy was raised. This, in turn, raised previously unconsidered questions about (inter alia): the discourse, language and symbolism surrounding politicians; the limits of democratic politics; the politics of public expectations; and whether political scientists have a professional duty to the public in terms of promoting the public understanding of politics. The aim of making this provocative argument – framed as it was around a reinterpretation of the MPs expenses scandal in the UK – was to provoke a debate about the existence of certain ‘self-evident’ truths, the fragility of democratic politics and the future of political science as an academic discipline. Phrased in these terms the initial article was successful as six respondents – Domonic Bearfield, Alastair Campbell, Martin Gainsborough, Peter Riddell, Klaus Segbers and Gerry Stoker – immediately entered the fray and sought to either finesse and develop my arguments or to offer a considered critique. This article discusses ‘debating demonization’ in the form of a reply to each respondent and a focus on (in turn): the politics of demonization; the politics of the media; the politics of social class; the politics of monitory mechanisms; the politics of performance; and the politics of political science. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The parliamentary decline thesis formed the dominant theory and narrative of legislative behaviour and capacity during the 20th century. And yet in analytical terms the thesis provides a relatively blunt instrument for dissecting complex socio-political relationships. The bluntness of this tool has not been remedied by the lazy thinking and unconscious theorising that has too often dominated research in this field. The central argument of this article is that the dominant public, media and academic perception of an eviscerated and sidelined parliament provides a misleading caricature of a more complex institution. Moreover the constant promotion and reinforcement of this caricature by scholars arguably perpetuates and fuels public disengagement and disillusionment with politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the management of public expectations represents an underdeveloped field of political analysis, the global financial crisis and increasing evidence of public disengagement from conventional politics is likely to focus attention on the capacity of the state and the behaviour of politicians. As such, this article seeks to develop our understanding of public expectations by arguing that the dominant incentives and sanctions framework within competitive political systems facilitates the public's capacity to make demands of politicians while at the same time making it very hard for politicians to impose their expectations of public behaviour vis-a-vis the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2008 David Cameron declared that the Conservative party was 'ready for government' and suggested that 'the change we need is not just from Labour's old policies to our new policies... It's about a change from old politics to new politics'. This 'new politics' narrative is something of a cliché: British constitutional history reveals a regular pattern whereby opposition parties renege upon implementing far-reaching constitutional and democratic reforms once they win power. It is in this context that this article draws upon documentary analysis and a number of interviews to examine the Conservative party's position on constitutional reform and democratic renewal. It concludes that although the Conservative party has spent the last decade decrying the 'destruction' of the constitution it has undertaken little detailed preparatory work in relation to how it might seek to alter the governance of Britain. As a result the research presented in this article provides a number of insights into elite politics, strategic game-playing and executive veto capacities within a context of growing political disengagement from politics and falling levels of trust in politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the role, powers and future of independent European agencies as an aspect of the current debate surrounding European governance. It argues that the design and implementation of independent agencies in the EU should not be seen as a construct of apolitical administrative engineering or integration but should be interpreted as a central component of political debates regarding the future constitutional structure of the EU vis-à-vis member states. In order to demonstrate the validity of this argument, the article reflects upon five themes (growth, co-ordination, accountability, depoliticization and power) which have arisen as central issues in relation to delegated governance at the national level. These themes are analysed in order to assess the main lessons that could usefully be considered during this critical period of constitutional reflection and design for the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Without definitional clarity the "quango debate" is inherently flawed and meaningful progress undermined. A possible solution to this problem is proposed in this article by way of a subsectional map which aims to clarify the quango topography. This accepts the diversity inherent in the quango debate while allowing for increased clarity and focused research. This, the authors believe, is the only way forward for practitioners, academics and policymakers working within the sphere of quasi-government. There is a need to address precise forms or subsections of the quango continuum as studies or reforms which focus on one type of quango would not necessarily work if applied to all quangos, or quangos in other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a world that is increasingly dominated by literary hyperbole there can be no doubt that Bernard Crick's In Defence of Politics remains a classic text. Classic not just in the sense that it provides a masterly account of the essence, meaning and fragility of democratic politics but classic in the sense that it is written with a style, verve and passion that is rarely found within political science. If the test of pretensions to 'a classic' status is that a book defies the passage of time in terms of significance and argument then Crick's Defence would also make the grade for the simple fact that its arguments remain arguably far more important today than they were when they were first published exactly fifty years ago. This article reflects on the contemporary significance of Crick's Defence by defending politics against an updated set of adversaries in the form of: public expectations, marketisation, depoliticisation, the media, and crises before locating the book within the contours of current debates about public disengagement, the rise of 'disaffected democrats' and questions concerning the future and relevance of political science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Highlights and Abstract This article provides the first detailed and evidence-based account of the coalition government's approach to transport-related carbon management., It exposes the existence of a 'governance vacuum' between the statutory target and a very weak devolved implementation system (i.e. 'fuzzy governance' and 'fuzzy accountability')., Research in four major city regions reveals a systemic switch from an emphasis on carbon management and reduction towards economic growth and job creation., Officials within the policy design and delivery chain emphasise the manner in which the demands of democratic politics tend to frustrate meaningful policy change., A general demand by actors at the local level not for the discretions delivered by localism but for a more robust and centrally managed-even statutory-governance framework., The Climate Change Act 2008 received global acclaim for embedding an ambitious set of targets for the reduction of carbon emissions in legislation. This article explores the policies and institutional frameworks in place to deliver transport-related carbon reductions as part of the subsequent Carbon Plan. A detailed methodology involving institutional mapping, interviews and focus groups combined with a theoretical approach that combines the theory of multi-level governance with the literature on 'blame avoidance' serves to reveal a complex system of 'fuzzy governance' and 'fuzzy accountability'. Put simply, it reveals there are no practical sub-national implementation levers for achieving the statutory targets. Apart from symbolic or rhetorical commitments, the emphasis of policy-makers at all levels in the delivery chain has switched from carbon management and reduction to economic growth and job creation. This raises fresh research questions about the pathologies of democratic competition and future responses to the climate change challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article adopts and reinvents the ethnographic approach to uncover what governing elites do, and how they respond to public disaffection. Although there is significant work on the citizens' attitudes to the governing elite (the demand side) there is little work on how elites interpret and respond to public disaffection (the supply side). It is argued here that ethnography is the best available research method for collecting data on the supply side. The article tackles longstanding stereotypes in political science about the ethnographic method and what it is good for, and highlights how the innovative and varied practices of contemporary ethnography are ideally suited to shedding light into the 'black box' of elite politics. The potential pay‐off is demonstrated with reference to important examples of elite ethnography from the margins of political science scholarship. The implications from these rich studies suggest a reorientation of how one understands the drivers of public disaffection and the role that political elites play in exacerbating cynicism and disappointment. The article concludes by pointing to the benefits to the discipline in embracing elite ethnography both to diversify the methodological toolkit in explaining the complex dynamics of disaffection, and to better enable engagement in renewed public debate about the political establishment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]